Pioneers in Arts, Humanities, Science, Engineering, Practice 23 I. William Zartman I William Zartman: A Pioneer in Conflict Management and Area Studies Essays on Contention and Governance With a Foreword by Francis Deng and a Preface by Ellen Laipson Pioneers in Arts, Humanities, Science, Engineering, Practice Volume 23 Series Editor Hans Günter Brauch, Peace Research and European Security Studies (AFES-PRESS), Mosbach, Germany More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15230 http://www.afes-press-books.de/html/PAHSEP.htm http://www.afes-press-books.de/html/PAHSEP_Zartman.htm I. William Zartman I William Zartman: A Pioneer fl in Con ict Management and Area Studies Essays on Contention and Governance With a Foreword by Francis Deng and a Preface by Ellen Laipson 123 I.William Zartman Johns HopkinsUniversity School of AdvancedInternational Studies Washington, DC,USA Acknowledgement:ThecoverphotoportraysIraWilliamZartman.Thiscoverphotoaswell asallotherphotosinthisvolumeweretakenfromthepersonalphotocollectionoftheauthor who also granted the permission for their publication in this volume. A book website with additional information onI.William Zartmanand hismajor bookcovers is at:http://www. afes-press-books.de/html/PAHSEP_Zartman.htm. ISSN 2509-5579 ISSN 2509-5587 (electronic) Pioneersin Arts, Humanities,Science, Engineering, Practice ISBN978-3-030-06078-7 ISBN978-3-030-06079-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06079-4 LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018964693 ©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2019 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations. Copyediting:PDDr.HansGünterBrauch,AFES-PRESSe.V.,Mosbach,Germany ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland Gratefully to my gracious family, from Grace to Grace: Edythe Grace Z, my mother, to Grace Marie-Margaret Z, my granddaughter Foreword by Francis Deng ACollaboration with I.William Zartman: APartnershipofIdeas My wife tells me that the late UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali once asked her where I find the time to write the many books I have written, and her answerwasthatIwriteinmydreams.Mywife’sresponsewasanattemptatajoke, which I suspect received a diplomatic laugh. Reviewing I. William Zartman’s accomplishments, I cannot help but ask the same question. Bill is of course well known as an accomplished visionary scholar, who effectively related theory to practice, grounded concepts in the reality on the ground, and enjoyed passing knowledge on to successive generations of students. But he has also been a well rounded human being, who enjoyed painting and construction, sailing and biking, painting and listening to music. It will not be possible for me to do him justice in this representation. What I can do is report on my collaboration with him over the years and hope that my presentation will reflect my great admiration for Bill. vii viii ForewordbyFrancisDeng I first met Bill in Washington DC in the mid 1980s when I established the African Studies branch of the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution. In establishing the Program, I was conscious of the soft ground under my feet, having been trained in law, trespassed into anthropology, and braved my way into the world of diplomacy. I was therefore fortunate to have spotted Bill Zartman in my Washington intellectual adventures. I soon realized that he was the man I needed to cover for my weak points and insecurity in the scholarly jungle I was bravely venturing into. OurfirstchallengewastodevelopaconceptualframeworkfortheProgram.Bill hadawayofimmediatelygivingmeaninganddepthtoevenhalfcookedideasfrom intellectual and institutional partners, although he had no tolerance for presump- tuousness, arrogance or rudeness. I could not have found a more qualified, con- genial,andresourcefulpersontohelpmedeveloptheAfricaprogramatBrookings. His vast scholarship and field experiences cut across much of Africa, in particular Northern. Western, and Southern regions of the continent. His European, and indeed global, outreach also provided a very useful comparative context for approachingAfricanstudies.Atthetime,hewastheDirectoroftheAfricanStudies Program at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The John’s Hopkins University. We started by identifying the priority issues for Africa that required analysis withpolicyimplications andcapableofpracticalapplication.Theissueswereeasy to discern. They included: theprevention, management and resolution of conflicts; good and effective governance; protection of human rights; socio-economic development;genderbalance;andlater,protectionoftheenvironment.Ialsohada strong bias for taking culture as a cross-cutting theme in addressing these sub- stantive areas. While we produced several published works addressing aspects oftheseareasovertheyears,ourfocuswasintheareaofconflicts.Thequestionwe asked ourselves was how to approach African conflicts in the context of the immanent end of the Cold War. During the Cold War, we saw conflicts, internal and regional, as aspects of the globalconfrontationoftheSuperPowers.Theabilitytoaddresstheseconflictsalso depended on the super powers. The end of the Cold War would mean the with- drawal of the strategic interests and motivations of the Super Powers. This meant that we would now see these conflicts in their proper contexts as internal and regional,whichwouldbeagooddevelopment.Butwhowouldthenberesponsible for managing or resolving the conflicts? Bill and I proceeded to organize a research conference that addressed the questions we had posed at the outset, and covered both conceptual analyses and lessonsfromempiricalfieldstudies.Weco-editedtheconferencepapersinourfirst project publication: Conflict Resolution in Africa (1991), for which General Olusegun Obasanjo, former President of Nigeria, contributed the Introduction. We then commissioned experts to prepare regional and country specific studies which covered West Africa, East Africa, Southern Africa, South Africa, Sudan and Somalia. ForewordbyFrancisDeng ix Our original hypothesis was substantiated and expounded in these series. Bill Zartman’s main conceptual framework of approaching governance as conflict management, elaborated in the West African Case study which he edited, became anoverarchingtheme.ThisimpliedthatpostColdWarmanagementandresolution of conflicts would fall primarily on the state concerned, with the international community playing a subsidiary role, if called upon to help. The sub-text was that humanrightsandhumanitarianprinciplesandconcernswouldemergeascentralto thenormativeframeworkofthenewworldorderandthatfailurebyastatetomeet the needs of an affected population would trigger international action. Sovereignty wouldnolongerbeseenasabarricadeagainstinternationalinvolvementtoremedy state failure to protect and assist the needy population. We then proceeded to consider the elements of the normative framework that constituted state responsibility. We embarked on a collaborative volume to sub- stantiatetheconcept.Governanceasconflictmanagementinvolvedpolitical,social, cultural and economic aspects, ultimately resulting in internal peace, security and stability. How this should translate into state responsibility that would override sovereignty became a subject of considerable differences among the chapter authors. My inclination was to postulate sovereignty as a positive concept of state responsibilitytoprotectandassistitsneedypopulations,andifnecessary,tocallon theinternationalcommunitytorenderahelpinghandtoassistthestatetodischarge what is essentially its domestic responsibility. With his genius for formulating catchytitles,BillcameupwithSovereigntyasResponsibility:ConflictManagement in Africa as the title for the volume (1996). That ended the discussion. This concept was later developed by the Canadian sponsored International Commission onInterventionandStateSovereignty(ICISS)intotheResponsibility to Protect, which became popularly known as R2P. The concept is widely acknowledged as rooted in our Brookings work on the sovereignty of responsi- bility. Butwhatsubstantively constituted stateresponsibility?We decidedtofocus on human rights and commissioned experts to prepare papers on the evolution oftherelevantprinciplesofinternational human rights and humanitarianlaw,with related institutional arrangements. The outcome was another volume: African Reckoning: A quest for good governance (1998). BillandIwerealsoinvolvedinaparallelprocesswhichwasinitiatedbyGeneral Obasanjo.ThroughtheAfricanLeadershipForum,GeneralObasanjoundertookan InitiativemodeledaftertheHelsinkiprocessthatculminatedintheOrganizationfor SecurityandCooperationinEurope(OSCE).Theinitiativeledtotheconveningofa meetinginKampalawhichwasattendedbyover500people,includinganumberof HeadsofState.Themostcontentiousissuewashowtoreconcilestateresponsibility with sovereignty. A heated debate ended with the adoption of a language that ambiguouslyacknowledgedsovereignty,butalsostipulatedstateresponsibilityforits citizens, and the supportive role of the international community. It was essentially what we had outlined in Sovereignty as Responsibility. The meeting adopted the Kampala Document: Conference on Security, Stability, Development and x ForewordbyFrancisDeng Cooperation in Africa (CSSDCA) which was quite a revolutionary statement. The documentwaspresentedtotheOrganizationofAfricanUnity(OAU)foradoption, butwasblockedbyanumberofstatesthatfeltvulnerableundertheframework. To make things worse, General Obasanjo was arrested and detained by the Nigerian dictator, General Sani Abacha. He asked me from detention to act as ChairmanoftheAfricaLeadershipForum.Oureffortstochangethepositionofthe OAUweretonoavail.BillandIdecidedtopushtheprocessforwardbywritingthe book, A Strategic Vision for Africa: the Kampala Movement (2002), in which we reformulated the principles of CSSCA and placed them in the wider context that reflectedthespiritofSovereigntyasResponsibility.Obasanjowaseventuallyfreed andintheradicalturnofeventsretunedtothehelmofNigerianpowerstructureas the elected President. He and his likeminded colleagues, foremost of whom was PresidentThabuMbekiofSouthAfrica,resuscitatedCSSDCAwithintheOAUand had it adopted and integrated into the Organization’s Mechanism for Conflict Management. At about the same time, African heads of State initiated the process that trans- formed the Organization into the African Union, in many respects a model of the European Union, but with distinct African characteristics. I was privileged to be among the so-called Eminent Persons who assisted in the transformation. In one of the early discussions of the draft constitutive document, we faced the same controversyovertheissueofsovereigntyandendedwiththesamedelicatebalance between respect for sovereignty and the authorization of intervention to stop egregious crimes, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. That culminated in the famous article 4h of the Constitutive Act, often cited as evidence of African leadership in the formal adoption of Sovereignty as Responsibility and the Responsibility to Protect. Thesetwoaretwinconceptswith identical principlesbased onthreepillars: the primary responsibility of the step for its population, the responsibility of the international community to assist in enhancing the capacity of the state to provide protection, and the residual responsibility of the international community to inter- venewhenstatesmanifestlyfailtodischargetheirresponsibilityincrisessituations of greatest need. However, the popular perception is that while Sovereignty as Responsibility underscores the responsibility of the state, the Responsibility to Protect is understood to call for coercive international intervention. The former is welcomed,whilethelatterisresisted.Toallaythefearsthatmymandateoninternal displacement was a threat to sovereignty, I was able to win the cooperation of Governments by invoking the principles of Sovereignty as Responsibility, which again resonated with most Governments. Later, after I left the UN and became the first Permanent Representative of the newly independent Republic of South Sudan to the United Nations, I decided as Chairman of the Africa Group for the month to inject into our routine diplomatic activities some intellectual exercise. So I invited Bill and another old friend, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, an Islamic scholar and Professor of law at Emory University, to speak on the subject of constructive management of diversity. Both were stimulatingly provocative, which generated a lively discussion.