Henk Kieft (chairman): Now a presentation will follow of the issues that have been raised in the working groups, starting with working group A, which discussed the role of civil society in peace building in Angola. Their first statement reads: promising new local initiatives are emerging, in the field of sustainable development, conflict resolution and capacity building of civil society, for which continued and/or increased support from the international community in general and international civil society in particular is required. Working group A noted that many interesting things are happening in the rural areas where journalists are rarely present. Therefore their recommendation is that Angolan media and other organisations should not focus only on what happens in Luanda and in the formal circuits, but also on what happens in the interior.

Frei Zeca: In this context I would like to underline that assistance should not only focus on what is called the formal sector but sufficient attention should also be given to the informal sector: i.e. to the issues and concerns of the persons in the streets and in the villages, through the organisations and the groups that form civil society, or better, the civil societies in Angola.

Henk Kieft (chairman): The second statement of working group A refers back to an issue that has already been mentioned in the introductions of this morning. It reads: all different actors in civil society should participate in the construction of the peace process. In order to define how Angolan civil society could be supported in this respect, we first need to establish to whom to address this statement. I invite the panel to elaborate on who could initiate this participation of civil society and how this could take shape.

Daniel Ntoni Nzinga: The actors that we consider important in this process are the NGOs that are particularly involved in reflection on peace and the churches who are doing some very serious work in creating space for mediation. The churches could take up a role of mediator if accepted and requested for by the two parties involved in the conflict. I also consider the trade unions of great importance. GARP acknowledges the important role that the workers could play in the search for peace. The youth and women's organisations in the country could also play an important role. In fact, all organisations of the masses should have access to the debate. I also like to include here the cultural associations that were formed at many levels and the organisations of peasants. Talking about NGOs, human rights organisations and professional organisations, such as the lawyers association, should also be included. I already mentioned the necessity to create a process that should culminate in a platform of all these organisations, or at least the majority of those that want, in order to share ideas. This platform should be developed to facilitate the movement of persons and ideas, as I like to call it.

We as GARP together with GAP have launched an appeal for a national forum for peace, which we hope will take place before the end of this year (1999). The objective of the forum is exactly to congregate all the organisations that I just mentioned. We would like to see that this process is combined with the process that the churches are developing. Reverend Octávio Fernando spoke this morning already of the ecumenical group that is working on peace. We are also working to join our efforts with the international Jubilee 2000 campaign, which in Angola is being understood as a jubilee, i.e. not just as a celebration but as a transitional process. We want to make sure that Jubilee 2000 will be a proclamation of peace in Angola.

Henk van den Heuvel: Hoping that one day peace negotiations will be initiated again and imagining that the Angolan government invites civil society to play a role, would you like this same group to participate in the negotiations together with the government and UNITA? I am asking this because in my view there is a difference between the present initiative to construct a peace process and a culture of peace among the people on the one hand and peace negotiations as such on the other.

Daniel Ntoni Nzinga: Yes, I think that the creation of consensus on the most important issues of the nation is a decisive step towards the creation of a credible agenda for peace. This consensus should be developed through dialogue between the same groups that claim to represent civil society. Second, we do not think that all can participate in the process of negotiations but within this movement for peace there will certainly be structures and groups that are more inclined to do this work of mediation and these should participate in name of the movement as a whole. The platform should serve as a place where all the actors complement each other.

Chris Collier: What are the most important obstacles in the development of the national platform for peace and what does it want to do?

Daniel Ntoni Nzinga: The first obstacle is fear. We will have to leave behind us the fear that all depends on the political forces in the country. Angola presently has a culture which implies that initiatives either for change or for action are prerogatives of the political forces, in particular of the political parties. In this phase UNITA and the MPLA claim these prerogatives. We will need to leave this fear behind and enter a new phase in which all Angolan organisations have the right and can develop their capacity to intervene with ideas in the management of the nation, without necessarily having to be the country's leaders. The big challenge for us is to make civil society act and simultaneously preventing these groups from transforming themselves into political parties. One of the fears I have had several times is that maybe GARP will turn into a political party, or that ADRA would become very vocal about the road to be followed in order to reach peace and turns itself in a political party, or that the churches will start to talk about what pastor Octávio urged us to leave to Caesar.

Another obstacle is the lack of preparation of the Angolans to engage themselves or to develop an internal mechanism for mediation. Until today we do not have this culture, therefore we need to create conditions so that among the Angolans within this movement for peace there will be people that can carry out these tasks with confidence and the necessary capacity.

The third obstacle is that the Angolan civil society currently does not have the material resources that should help it to act efficiently.

Fernando Pacheco: Another obstacle would be the change of context. The context in Angola is changing very frequently and could evolve in such a way that it could provoke significant changes that could stop the realisation of the forum.

Frei Zeca: I would like to present a personal concern which is related to the experience that we have had at Mosaiko in our work. Several persons are speaking in terms of a vision for the medium or longer term. We need to have something effective and important which has an action plan, but at the same time I think that an action plan should be proportional to the dedicated effort and time and to the dimensions of the issues.

[name questioner unknown]: What is the position of Angolan civil society organisations towards support for this peace process from NGOs and churches in other countries?

Daniel Ntoni Nzinga: Yes, we need help from all the sectors in civil society and I will use the words that I will borrow from my colleague: the international civil society, being the civil societies in all countries of the world should join us to help us to succeed with this agenda.

Henk Kieft (chairman): The last statement of working group A is that in order to attain sustainable peace the demobilisation of UNITA soldiers should be promoted and initiatives offered. (It is very important that the demobilised soldiers find some way of supporting themselves to build a future for themselves; it is necessary to give them the possibility to build their own future). The question to the panel is who should take these initiatives, how this process is to be initiated and supported?

Fernando Pacheco: This is a process which in principle is up to the Angolan state, only the Angolan state does not have the capacity to do it alone. Through projects of NGOs with international assistance in line with earlier actions with help of the United Nations, I think that this is the most effective way. There is a lot of international funding available to support this kind of initiatives. The demobilisation as such can only be the responsibility of the Angolan government, there are no NGOs and churches that can assist.

Daniel Ntoni Nzinga: The civil society through organised groups and through institutions such as churches will contribute, but the programme as such has to be included as it was in Lusaka. In Lusaka, this was an integrated part and at the same time there was not sufficient attention for it, but I think that the churches and the other groups can participate in the implementation and even in the vision of how this demobilisation should take place. I would like to emphasise here that it is not only a matter of demobilising only the soldiers of UNITA but also of demobilising the mentality of the Angolans regarding violence and this needs to be an integrated part of this demobilisation process.

Joke Hartmans: A precondition is that the government should control the national territory, because otherwise it will be impossible to have an effective integration of former UNITA soldiers in government structures. I have personally accompanied a process where we have tried to incorporate former UNITA health workers in the national health system and we started off very well, but because the extension of state administration did not take place as it was foreseen in the Lusaka Protocol, the whole programme fell apart. So the effective control over the national territory is a precondition.

Pedro Bruno Kiafuka: My question is as follows, as we saw here in this framework one speaks of demobilisation of one side only, of the side of the Angolan rebels. But the Angolan conflict is a conflict that concerns all Angolans because it is not only UNITA that has the possibility of arms and military, there are also other para-military groups in the country that are killing too. To give privileges to a government that has already assassinated many persons, to have even a larger number of persons or uncontrolled military, I am against this.

Henk Kieft (chairman): Working group B dealt with the possible future UN mission in Angola. To guide the discussion, this working group distinguished between principles of UN intervention and the contents of such an intervention. UN involvement should be guided by three principles that were identified by the group, the first one being transparency, the second one recognising human needs, even of the powerful, and third the need for politics of inclusion. Transparency is to be provided by the UN itself regarding its own role and the UN should also promote transparency by other actors in the game.

The issue of the substance of UN involvement in Angola refers to the desired mandate of a future UN mission in Angola. According to working group B, such a mandate should include 1) human rights monitoring, 2) information and media support, 3) strengthening civil society by protecting and enlarging civil space and by picking up and supporting conciliatory initiatives.

This is what came out as points for discussion and recommendations from working group B. What is the opinion of the Angolan panel?

Frei Zeca: I sincerely do not want to be advocate of the devil, because my interventions might be inconvenient, but I participated in this group and after this discussion which in my view was very short and here already drawing conclusions is such a thing that from my point of view is not proportional to the extension of the problem, for instance, what would be necessary is much more time, much more depth, much more clarity, etc.

Henk Kieft (chairman): I take it that this intervention of the panel means that this is a premature way of formulating the mandate and giving suggestions and it needs more communication and reflection together to sense the depth of the problem to come up with more relevant recommendations.

Chris Collier: I would like to make a comment on the human rights monitoring, in my view it should not be restricted only to the monitoring because than what do you do after human rights violations are detected? I think one of the main problems, one of the main obstacles in Angola is that of the impunity with which human rights are violated. And I think that as the Human Rights Watch report on Angola is also saying this leads into a vicious circle of impunity, so if there is no rule of law, if human rights violations are not dealt with in some kind of a fair way, than there is absolutely no incentive to put down your arms, that is at least the way I see it. So, it should be more than monitoring, then what?

Henk Kieft (chairman): It was taken up in the second point namely publishing everything that is monitored. Is it necessary to add?

Joke Hartmans: I participated in this working group and in my view the scope was broader than just human rights, in my perception the outcome was that the mandate of a new UN organisation should be to promote national reconciliation with human rights as part of that effort.

Ana Garcia: I would like to stress that in Angola capacity building of the judicial system is very important. They are instruments that in fact should move away from the mentality that causes fear among the people. I would like to give a concrete example: in front of a police person in my country, I feel more fear than security, I feel more vulnerable together with a police person than when I am with an ordinary citizen. For this reason it is very important (that the international community) get involved in capacity building of the defence and security forces.

Henk Kieft (chairman): I would like to move forward to the outcome of working group C. This group started by saying we do not want to be mentioned as the working group on trade but a working group on sanctions. The answer on the question sanctions or not is a clear yes, but the group reported that our Angolan delegation insisted very much on developing the lobby for sanctions in very tight co-operation with partners in Angola, it should not purely be an initiative of expatriates. Second point, supporting an institution for research and monitoring that indeed monitors trade and illegal trade specifically oriented on oil companies and banking institutions. This is necessary for transparency of the trade, and to understand what is probably a legal part and what is probably illegal part and it should be possible to publish. The basic thinking behind this conclusion of the group was that 'look at the future of the children' and the basic process of (the basic argument for supporting sanctions) of illegal trade is to undermine the financial basis of the war [...] I see a reporter of the group moving is there something missing in my reporting [...]

Fabio Poelhekke: What is missing is that there was a very strong message from the Angolan guests that such a research and monitoring institute that is being planned as an initiative of the Angolan civil society should systematically be supported by European civil society not especially or only with money but very much especially with a constant flow of information derived from companies in the north (commercial companies involved in the Angolan situation) because the Angolan civil society does not have direct access to such information. They are denied access to such information and it is the obligation of northern civil society to help them get the information they need in a structural way.