The involvement of the African Union (AU) in Cote d'Ivoire has indeed further exposed the already entrenched perception of the complexity of conflict mediation processes across the continent. These processes require capacity for contextualization as well as the need for instilled urgency and the AU has thus been faced with such challenges. The effective profiling of mediators or negotiators is also a pre-requisite that will ensure that the conflicting parties invest their confidence, commitment and hope in the grueling processes of mediation.

The conflict in Cote d'Ivoire has been hinged on what Alassane Ouattara claims to be a free and fair election and what political rival Laurent Gbagbo alleges to be a Ouattara-stolen poll.

In the period running from January to February 2011 the conflict in Cote d'Ivoire translated into increased military engagement with security forces backing Gbagbo and the Forces Nouvelles who are an armed group that took control of the northern parts of the country in 2002 backing Ouattara. The AU has not been able to mediate and produce some indicative results within the shortest possible time frame as the crisis has now dragged on for about three months without due resolution. Normally when opposing forces lose confidence in the prospects of a mediation process, they resort to employing their own means to achieve an end.

Many mediators

The AU also employed multiple mediators that have featured in the trouble spot nation todate. When the conflict first dawned, former South African President Thabo Mbeki was dispatched and was immediately withdrawn without any meaningful contribution. Another group of different mediators then took turns in attempting to break the deadlock. The current leaders of Kenya, South Africa, Chad, Mauritania and Tanzania were all seen trying to resolve the standoff. In essence the incessant change of mediators could have drained off the confidence of the Cote d'Ivoire people including those central to the dispute.

The AU has also employed part-time mediators in many conflicts including in Cote d'Ivoire. Part-time mediators are normally pre-occupied with their own domestic predicaments. Will Cote d'Ivoire and other African conflicts continue to linger if mediators with some duplicity of assignments continue to be employed?

The AU took inconsistent positions on the conflict in Cote d'Ivoire. Initially when the election results dispute arose the AU joined the UN and other international players in condemning Gbagbo and substantiating Ouattara as the winner. Over time the AU failed to rein in on Gbagbo's intransigence toward the continental body's position. This then led to the AU together with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) insisting that if Gbabgo failed to step down he would face legitimate removal even through military options. Gbabgo did not comply and many therefore expected the AU and ECOWAS to then institute their vehemently projected threat. On January 29 the AU through one of its mediators, Kenya's Raila Odinga, announced that it was rather opting to soften its stance given the possibilities of worsening the situation should any military options be employed.

In that regard the AU moved toward its currently embraced position of promoting dialogue between Ouattara and Gbagbo.

AU ruling

Given the background of the issues raised, the AU has however been faced with the need to engage mediators who are proximate to the geo-politics of Cote d'Ivoire and this is how the Burkinabe president was included in the team. The AU's mediation mandate is ultimately on the premise of the Head of State Summit and therefore the diplomatic considerations are sensitive, protracted and consultative which doesn't always make it possible to work along the expected timelines. AU appointed mediators are chosen by virtue of trying to maintain continuity, institutionalized knowledge and wisdom about each conflict. This is the reason why South African President Zuma still features prominently because his country has been involved in Cote d'Ivoire for a considerably long time. In essence the AU is also faced by the dire need to consider the diplomatic context of each conflict as it progresses.

Insinuations that seem to reflect inconsistencies are only meant to be contextual to the changing demands of mediation processes. African mediation processes are therefore complex as they give the impression of creating a simultaneous convergence of both challenges and opportunities. The AU's decision is however against a background of Ouattara being encouraged to form an inclusive government. As the tale goes, the complexity of African conflicts seem to nearly always arise in some compromise which is not always the best option, but goes to some length in halting hostilities; albeit only for a moment.

(Reporting from Zimbabwe)