Latest / SWP-Podcast / Megatrends Afrika: Chances and risks of US Deal-Making in Africa

Transcript

Megatrends Afrika: Chances and risks of US Deal-Making in Africa · SWP-Podcast

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: Look what's happening
• 0:02
  Speaker 0: in Africa.
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: What are you saying?
• 0:04
  Speaker 2: Africa will be a key partner In building the world we want to live, whether it is on climate digital or trade.
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: Our continent will continue
• 0:14
  Speaker 3: to make
• 0:15
  Speaker 2: study advances
• 0:16
  Speaker 3: in women's education and equal access
• 0:19
  Speaker 2: To services
• 0:20
  Speaker 0: thereby laying their foundation for most stable And peaceful societies.
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: For many African nations, megatrends like globalization and digitalization offer both great opportunity and enormous challenges in part because of external players vying to assert their own interests.
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: How the resulting upheaval impacts the continent is a subject of The Megatrend's Africa Project underway at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs and its partner institutions – the Kiel-Institut & Eidos.
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: And this is the podcast series.
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: In today's episode we ask how US President Donald Trump's transactionalism is impacting the dynamics of peace mediation in Africa, both for worse and better.
• 1:08
  Speaker 2: We will be focusing on decades-old conflict between the Democratic Republic mediation.
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: I'm joined today by Emma Dedin-Bardi and Fred Baume, both experts in the field.
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: And my SWP's very own Carolina Eichhoff.
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: Emma Deddin Bardi specializes In Conflict Security Governance and The Political Economy of Violence in Libya and the wider North African Sahel region.
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: He regularly briefs policymakers and works as an advisor for a number organizations including United Nations and DCAF.
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: It's great to be here.
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: Fred Baume is a human rights activist and executive director of Ebuteli, a research institute based in Kinshasa.
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: He's also the co-founding member of AFRICI A network with more than thirty movements from Africa And it's Diaspora.
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: he was previously Director Of The Congo Research Group at New York University.
• 2:14
  Speaker 2: Fred its'a pleasure To have You join us today.
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: Hello And Carolina.
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: ICOF is based here at SWP, working on the Megatrends Africa project.
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: Her research focuses on global power shifts and their impact on Africa's international relations with a particular emphasis on East Africa.
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: Carolina thank you for coming into this studio today.
• 2:34
  Speaker 3: Hello everyone
• 2:36
  Speaker 2: We're very lucky to have experts with first-hand empirical knowledge here in the studio today.
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: But before we get into details on the ground, I'd like a sense of what has changed on the continent since the Trump administration started brokering transactional peace deals?
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: Carolina perhaps you can start us off!
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: Hasn't peace always been transactional and hasn't Washington put its own concerns first?
• 3:05
  Speaker 3: So peace negotiations have to some extent always been transactional in the sense that of course, conflict parties themselves engage and give-and-take interactions.
• 3:15
  Speaker 3: They will bargain with each other they will pursue their own interests And there we'll expect concessions so that by itself is not new at all.
• 3:24
  Speaker 3: When we talk about transactional piece these days it's really but a third party on the third party interest.
• 3:31
  Speaker 3: Third parties are not coming in anymore just to convene or to facilitate a conversation between the conflict parties.
• 3:38
  Speaker 3: But they ask for something in return, usually in line with their own foreign policy interest and this is not entirely new either.
• 3:46
  Speaker 3: but I would say that what we see from U.S administration these days basically taking third party interests peace element in the deals that are being made is almost like a side story to many of the other deals I've made.
• 4:01
  Speaker 3: For example, when it comes to resources and what's also a bit new as that administration so overt about it?
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: Well Fred warring parties in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda have signed a peace agreement last year called the Washington Accords.
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: Tell us about that deal, both its terms and how it differs from previous mediation attempts particularly when it comes to third-party interests that Carolina has been talking about?
• 4:32
  Speaker 0: The Washington Accord as people refer is a set of agreements between Rwanda,
• 4:40
  Speaker 0: U.S.,
• 4:40
  Speaker 0: and DRC And it includes mainly two main agreements, so the peace and security – peace agreement between Rwanda and DRC.
• 4:51
  Speaker 0: Which goals was to create conditions for peace in Eastern DRC?
• 4:55
  Speaker 0: And which key component is with rule of Rwandan Army in eastern DRC and the naturalization of FDLRs that also include the return of refugees.
• 5:08
  Speaker 0: And the second agreement is what's referred to as a regional economic integration framework, which was aimed at creating conditions for stability.
• 5:19
  Speaker 0: prosperity in the region and investment to some projects.
• 5:24
  Speaker 0: But alongside these agreements, there were also bilateral agreement between
• 5:29
  Speaker 0: U.S.,
• 5:29
  Speaker 0: and different parties.
• 5:31
  Speaker 0: especially there was an agreement between US and Congo called the Strategic Partnership Agreement which is more focused on mineral exploitation a memorandum of understanding between Congo and the US on security matters.
• 5:51
  Speaker 0: And I think this is one example of what Caroline was talking about, because the
• 5:55
  Speaker 0: U.S.,
• 5:56
  Speaker 0: at the same time it's using its power and influence to put the belligerents onto table—at interests both in Congo and Rwanda, in terms of mineral investment.
• 6:13
  Speaker 0: And I think at some point these two goals – the bilateral one.
• 6:18
  Speaker 0: Well,
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: I'm gonna come back to you a little bit more on how that clashes and the impact if i may just because I'd like to ask EMAJ now.
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: How the US administration is pushing for A power sharing deal in Libya right Now as I understand it And and how these efforts maybe differ from previous negotiations.
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: so yes The u.s.
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: Administration or rather its Special advisor For arbornafrican affairs masad volos Is currently pushing power sharing arrangement in Libya.
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: This isn't traditional power-sharing, and the sense that it is between by and large individuals.
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: so you're seeing an effort by these special advisors to essentially broker a arrangement between two families or two individuals The Prime Minister Abdelhamid Beybe of the internationally recognized government in Tripoli In Libya And then this sort of de facto authorities in eastern Libyan, in Rajman or in Benghazi the Haftar family.
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: The two individuals that have been the center of negotiations were the Prime Minister's nephew and Khalifa Haftars son Saddam And the idea would essentially be to concoct a government between these two and new Presidency Council.
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: In hopes this will create viable environment for potentially economic, let's say arrangements and the return of American companies to Libya.
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: And that seems
• 7:59
  Speaker 2: Well, again I'm gonna come back to you find out how that's going.
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: But Fred returning to the Africa Great Lakes region How is then this agreement?
• 8:08
  Speaker 2: You talked about these two agreements That there's potential they may clash And how has it been perceived actually on the ground?
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: and what Is impact right now?
• 8:19
  Speaker 0: I'll say The initial involvement of US in its capacity To lead into this kind of agreement was perceived positively in general, also because the past U.S.
• 8:33
  Speaker 0: was perceived as an ally to Rwanda.
• 8:34
  Speaker 0: so using its diplomatic instruments to force those two actors on agreement was perceived positively.
• 8:44
  Speaker 0: However with that hope comes a sort of despair Because evolution is in negotiation room and peace deals have been signed here are not followed by concrete improvement of the situation on the ground.
• 9:00
  Speaker 0: So at the same time, there is progress in Washington and also conflict escalation.
• 9:09
  Speaker 0: In fact, December almost at the same time, they piece of code were signed in Washington.
• 9:18
  Speaker 0: A major city was fallen under the rebellion in East and
• 9:21
  Speaker 0: D.I.C.,
• 9:22
  Speaker 0: so there is a disconnect between this situation on the ground.
• 9:29
  Speaker 0: But at that same time... There's a lot discussions about U.S.
• 9:34
  Speaker 0: investment in D. I.C.
• 9:35
  Speaker 0: but also U. S. potential investments into areas where conflict is.
• 9:43
  Speaker 0: from the discussions to the actual investment, there is also a big gap.
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: Thank you for it.
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: and what about Libya, Imad?
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: What expectations are there about current efforts?
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: And specifically at stake for various stakeholders?
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: That's a lot of questions but I'd say like few things that may be characterised in colour as people perceive this plan of Masad Bolas.
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: One, it's quite personal and personalized in that he is negotiating with individuals.
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: so its quite exclusive It not a very inclusive framework Not alot people are consulted which naturally leads to some dissent.
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: The second thing, and there are a mixed bag of views about this is that obviously it's the US being involved which hasn't been the case previously.
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: So that comes with the U.S.
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: brand...that comes with their U. S seriousness let say That also comes with perception that its Trump pushing for this It's a bit inevitable in a sense And that is also triggering sentiments, let's say and that a lot of the stakeholders are positioning themselves along the lines of this needs to be accommodated in some way shape or form.
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: However number other stake holders are increasingly now unhappy with said plan because it is triggering not only tensions within uh...the communities there supposed to sort-of buy into set plan but also trigger intentions within the very families.
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: The second thing about this plan aside that being personalized and not inclusive is it doesn't seem to be very well, first of all thought out.
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: And also doesn't seems to set in stone.
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: In a sense It appears quite malleable.
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: Do
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: you think thats deliberate?
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: To a certain extent its possible but it's also possible that its incompetence.
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: We're clearly saying that this isn't so much institutionally led as much is individually led.
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: So the line between sort of it being deliberate versus not well thought out, its a bit blurry and frankly even engaging with US policy makers you're not able to get the right answers about that.
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: That being said ,the fact that it is malleable offers some room for adapting which what stakeholders on ground are doing too most importantly also with UN is also trying to do, because let's not forget there was a UN sort of mediation track in Libya and naturally the US sitting as permanent member of security council.
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: The UN needs to adapt whatever Masad Boulos is doing.
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: so aside it being sort of complicated, let's say to adapt you by the communities and buy the stakeholders.
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: It is also complicated for traditional mediation frameworks as well to adopt too.
• 12:54
  Speaker 2: And what are the alternatives towards being brokered right now?
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: Well ideally if I want put this bluntly If it was unplanned or not very inclusive then that UN plan would be a bit better planned and a bit more inclusive.
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: That would ideally be the alternative, but at the moment unfortunately The UN plan is sort of some portions of it are put on the back burner while we see what the US Is able to concoct?
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: And if he IS Able to concock something... ...and I also have To say that the U.S Plan is currently facing setbacks as well At the moment in Libya.
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: so It's an open question whether by the time even the podcast what the sort of new layout will look like vis-à-vis this plan.
• 13:43
  Speaker 2: Okay, so it's very dynamic.
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: Carolina... This new trend of transactionalism elicits very strong views.
• 13:52
  Speaker 2: are all of them negative?
• 13:55
  Speaker 2: We've heard a little bit from both Fred and Imad about the hope that there is potential to really get lasting peace.
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: but Generally, it's strong views and we're particularly hearing that from AIMAD.
• 14:14
  Speaker 2: What is your view?
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: what was the situation?
• 14:18
  Speaker 3: so I would say yeah We've heard this both about The Great Lakes region and Libya but picture is pretty mixed.
• 14:24
  Speaker 3: how people weigh the pros and cons or the potential And risk of these deals.
• 14:30
  Speaker 3: um i Would Say That when It Comes maybe Just to This the Motivation Of the US side this kind of foreign policy priorities first, few people would approve of that in itself.
• 14:42
  Speaker 3: So and there's also a lot of concerns about how these deals are made the fact they're so exclusive or short term oriented And from what we know but peace agreements I think this goes a lot against What We Would Think Makes Deals Sustainable?
• 14:59
  Speaker 3: So i think There Are A Lot Of Concerns.
• 15:02
  Speaker 3: But On The Other Hand There Also Some People Who Look At These Deals And Say or feel that they are maybe more pragmatic than other deals, and pragmatic in the sense of getting something done.
• 15:13
  Speaker 3: And this is particularly the case in regions where conflicts have been protracted for years.
• 15:21
  Speaker 3: Decades and some like might be multilateral initiatives.
• 15:25
  Speaker 3: initiatives have been going on But they haven't really come to any conclusion or tangible improvements.
• 15:30
  Speaker 3: And I think particularly of the Great Lakes here where many initiatives are being going on.
• 15:34
  Speaker 3: Now, The US is coming in so Some people think that maybe it's a shortcut To at least arriving at somethings moving conflict parties may be re-evaluating A bit this situation.
• 15:46
  Speaker 3: So i think there was hope for that especially in these situations that are really very, very protracted.
• 15:53
  Speaker 3: And I guess there's also a bit of hope with the US is still able to do some things other actors can't through influence or relations so they get something unstuck and really compel parties stick to agreements made even if those are short term maybe limited in scope but could potentially then create entry points for some other actors coming in who can maybe pick up on these short-term deals and see what to make out of it, then the next step.
• 16:26
  Speaker 2: Well Fred are there examples where transactionalism has performed well either as a byproduct or accident?
• 16:33
  Speaker 2: Or lack of alternatives or any other reasons in Great Lakes region?
• 16:39
  Speaker 0: I think that very short term and maybe tactical consideration There have been some positive outcome of it in terms of containing the conflict, not resolving the conflicts.
• 16:55
  Speaker 0: So for example when M-Twenty three was trying to move northward toward Walikale around a place where there's mining sites which sells minerals through U.S companies these transactional like this very interested intervention of the
• 17:19
  Speaker 0: U.S.,
• 17:20
  Speaker 0: allowed to contain that provision, and I think in some sense when they attack on Ouvira also happened The U. S. involvement was critical in enforcing M-twenty three to retract.
• 17:40
  Speaker 0: however And i think this is Something similar towards Ahmad was alluded too Actors in the region tend to adapt themselves to this new setting.
• 17:53
  Speaker 0: And so, in a long run I mean that capacity of these approach to resolve root causes conflict is very limited and so far everyone will position themselves on the side.
• 18:10
  Speaker 0: that is favorable to their interest of mediators.
• 18:13
  Speaker 0: And I think we can see it in a way people are coming out with very maximalist demands, because they think there aren't other deals with each of parties.
• 18:27
  Speaker 0: and i think alongside these US-led approaches, both in Congo or Libya and Sudan to some extent.
• 18:38
  Speaker 0: There are other forums like there are processes that have been led by other mediators without proper results because people tend to prioritize where their interests are maximized.
• 18:52
  Speaker 2: Amad, what about in Libya?
• 18:55
  Speaker 2: Has any of the attempted transactionalism brought about positive developments or are
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: we not that far yet?
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: I think yeah.
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: comparatively were probably not.
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: as for us maybe Western Sahara where there was sort of a deal or UN Security Council resolution or in DRC Congo Where it there was also sort of an agreement sign.
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: However perhaps In libya's wear there's to a certain extent the perception that this is somewhat of low-hanging fruit, because the special advisor himself quite actually relatively liked by individuals he was negotiating with.
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: For instance in Sudan not so much for example... So there's a perception that perhaps in terms of the panoply of files, these special advisers leading or mediating on Libya could potentially be one where there is an agreement.
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: Now to go back your earlier question about long-term peace I don't necessarily think thats'the aim of US side.
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: i would say it create minimum level stability for Commerce or commercial relations to be established.
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: That's one aspect of it and the second would probably be to get an actual agreement signed.
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: I think that's the benchmark against which this is measured.
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: so actually a victory potentially for Masa at Bullos with not necessarily beat bring peace to Libya But they're actually get trumped to sign another agreement and to be perceived as a peacemaker.
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: So I think at there, there's probably a bit of critique to being made about the long-term prospects or successes in this approach.
• 20:36
  Speaker 2: Or lack of them right?
• 20:38
  Speaker 2: Yeah!
• 20:39
  Speaker 2: And where is it actually again... It was very early days but Where are making issues worse?
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: Making issues worse means that The main worry would be prematurely signed.
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: And you're also seeing to a certain extent that there's often pressure That is pushed along US electoral timelines, for instance.
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: So let's secure something around the seventh of July or let's secures.
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: Something before the midterms Which aren't deadlines?
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: That really Libya needs to adapt too in theory but unfortunately To this us administration because of domestic issues needs to be accommodated on their side.
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: So yeah, this is the kind of new dynamic that I would say would not be traditionally... Would not be the traditional approach let's say in standard mediation where it will a bit more institutionally led.
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: well.. A little better thought out lets'a and a bit better sequence.
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: Now we're having a plan or rough contourser have a plan.
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: there are leaked by stakeholders and that stakeholders are also, again like Fred said trying to adapt to make better use of.
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: The last thing I'll mention is because Masaad Burros is negotiating with individuals and because Libya has not had a suffrage in actual presidential parliamentary suffrage for ten or twelve years.
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: A lot these stakeholders are perceiving this deal might actually be their lifeline possibly not be very popular in a vote, and the nationwide suffrage.
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: So it's actually better for them to keep hopes of these negotiations alive to extend their political lifeline, let's say without actually necessarily getting into a long-term deal.
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: So it is quite game of musical chairs in that sense and unfortunately the US administration either incapable or unwilling to sort of adapt as well.
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: Fred where is transactionalism making things worse?
• 22:56
  Speaker 2: I think
• 23:01
  Speaker 0: worsening of the conflict.
• 23:03
  Speaker 0: So going back with this sentiment that we broke a peace, but there's no peace and to some extent it appeals today to discourse that is oriented towards some population like you in the US Trump keeps saying he resolved eight conflicts.
• 23:33
  Speaker 0: In reality, there is no conflict resolution in any of these.
• 23:41
  Speaker 0: So it becomes just a performative exercise where you sign agreements and bring people on the table but not really contributing to ending conflicts or suffering.
• 23:58
  Speaker 0: I think The U.S has capabilities to do better, go beyond what is superficial and address the rooted causes but I don't think there's an appetite right now in this very transactional form.
• 24:23
  Speaker 0: so it may...I they missed opportunity of this approach, where there is a clear need both from people and sometimes maybe form some actors to end the violence.
• 24:40
  Speaker 0: The direction with these approaches leading in the direction of peace.
• 24:46
  Speaker 0: it's just same actor that is negotiating on both of those conflicts you know?
• 24:53
  Speaker 0: And at the beginning He was of the involvement of Masa Boulos in
• 24:59
  Speaker 0: U.S.,
• 25:00
  Speaker 0: he actually liked because his pragmatic way, you know?
• 25:05
  Speaker 0: Bring things on a table that people can negotiate but long run it's very limited.
• 25:13
  Speaker 2: Well that really brings me to my last question.
• 25:16
  Speaker 2: I'd like get and if already spoken this just at some extent maybe Carolina.
• 25:24
  Speaker 2: What this all means more broadly for peace mediation is the US undermining previous efforts.
• 25:33
  Speaker 2: And what are the alternatives?
• 25:35
  Speaker 3: Yeah, when it comes to these questions about their impact I think as we've heard also from both contexts that's... We don't really have much evidence yet because many of these deals are very recent As Imad mentioned for Libya For example.
• 25:49
  Speaker 3: The context moving and conflicts changing.
• 25:51
  Speaker 3: so I think at the moment, people rely on personal views to make sense of this.
• 25:56
  Speaker 3: And that's a lot about also how they feel about peace should be made and what role should principles play?
• 26:03
  Speaker 3: Should deals be made in a multilateral context or should it be bilateral
• 26:07
  Speaker 3: actors?".
• 26:09
  Speaker 3: So there is really a lot of personal sentiment that comes in—how people will feel about these deals.
• 26:15
  Speaker 3: There are certainly risks.
• 26:17
  Speaker 3: We know them well These risks from short-term deals.
• 26:21
  Speaker 3: I would probably not go as far, say at this point that these transactional deals undermine previous efforts.
• 26:35
  Speaker 3: What I would say is that we don't really have much to indicate they're doing much good in the sense of being the first step, something more comprehensive following.
• 26:44
  Speaker 3: So i don't think there's much evidence for this and either.
• 26:48
  Speaker 3: And experience from these two country cases doesn't give any impression at all or it's a bit of question than perhaps something tangible that we could refer to at this point.
• 26:58
  Speaker 3: The question of alternatives is just an open question, many people are discussing it and some lean more towards the transactional perspective and say actors should be more pragmatic or transactional while others lean in a direction calling for re-establishment peace architecture, as we knew it.
• 27:18
  Speaker 3: Basically that is more oriented towards establishing processes following norms and so on.
• 27:24
  Speaker 3: So there's really a debate where people alternate between these two positions And currently I would say no good answer found by the community of practice.
• 27:33
  Speaker 3: But i wouldn't be surprised if we end up settling maybe on something in-between.
• 27:39
  Speaker 3: What I think is important also was focus a lot about what Trump administration does.
• 27:45
  Speaker 3: First, it's that's not the only actor who is leaning towards this transactional approach.
• 27:50
  Speaker 3: There are a lot of other actors or governments coming in with his perspective of brokering short-term deals and they're not following traditional peace architecture.
• 28:01
  Speaker 3: And there also are trends that need to be found.
• 28:05
  Speaker 3: The conflict settings themselves are changing A lot.
• 28:08
  Speaker 3: we see internationalization so lots of trends in the sector currently really changing how conflicts are unfolding.
• 28:15
  Speaker 3: peace could perhaps be made.
• 28:17
  Speaker 3: And I think, yeah we should not forget that as we talk about alternatives it's really not just about this U.S approach and what you're seeing.
• 28:25
  Speaker 3: there is a lot of challenges in the sector.
• 28:27
  Speaker 3: new approaches need answers
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: to.
• 28:30
  Speaker 2: Well, I'm afraid you talked about Trumps definition of peace?
• 28:35
  Speaker 2: We've heard a lot about short termism.
• 28:37
  Speaker 2: very briefly can you paint picture the Great Lakes region in Africa?
• 28:47
  Speaker 0: That's a very interesting question, because for people in East Africa or in the Great Lake peace goes beyond secession of hostilities.
• 28:57
  Speaker 0: Peace means creating situations where people can live and they are village-in-their cities study do business and plan in long run what their life may look like.
• 29:13
  Speaker 0: Currently, you live in Goma.
• 29:16
  Speaker 0: You're living Bukavu.
• 29:17
  Speaker 0: We don't know what will happen in two years.
• 29:19
  Speaker 0: if you live now In some villages maybe we don't even know to happening and into weeks.
• 29:26
  Speaker 0: The other thing is the capacity of communities to leave together in that region And to go beyond their grievances Which can only be reached?
• 29:38
  Speaker 0: If we accept it to address profound wound and causes of the conflict.
• 29:48
  Speaker 0: And I think in these processes, actors don't go beyond big politics or conflicts.
• 29:59
  Speaker 0: Now this is a complicated thing but very simple terms.
• 30:05
  Speaker 0: it will be being able to sleep and work up, plan your life without fearing that you may die in the next couple of weeks.
• 30:17
  Speaker 2: And Eimad can you give us a sense what peace should look like or what are hopes for what peace looks like in Libya?
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: It would largely depend on whose perception we were talking about not to give a diplomatic answer but maybe I didn't centre the community enough.
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: Libya's sort-of governance and its services bad these days, and also its economy.
• 30:41
  Speaker 1: So to the community it would be very basic things that would need improvement—that are governance-oriented, economic value of the Libyan dean or electricity being provided water being provided fuel at the stations all which this summer for instance were not things.
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: people had access too.
• 31:00
  Speaker 1: I would question the extent in which US perceives the same way.
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: The only redeeming aspect to me of, for instance... ...the US plan or this renewed push is that it's forcing a change in status quo and the status quo was bad but also unsustainable.
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: so in that sense that's positive quality.
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: there is world where this sort-of U.S transactionalism could be channeled into more constructive ways towards long term peace.
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: at the moment I question whether the formula is leading to that and i also questioned the extent to which the formula would not lead to a return to conflict, which is the main danger.
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: At the moment of the US plan this would actually be quite destructive.
• 31:46
  Speaker 1: should it be prematurely signed or should it not be well thought out?
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: It could lead to significant internationalization.
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: On the flip side, a lot of stakeholders and foreign interveners – we haven't tackled all them in the podcast.
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: I would probably need another podcast to do that….
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: A lot are very comfortable with this status quo where the community is unfortunately not receiving its services or voting nor having any democratic representation but where resource extraction as possible.
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: So yeah... That's why I said this US push for All.
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: It's Fault From my perspective, a net positive in that the status quo needs to change.
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: My main worry is it reverting the conflict?
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: unfortunately
• 32:34
  Speaker 2: So its risky.
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: Exactly
• 32:36
  Speaker 2: What's clear Is that peace mediation still has lot of room for improvement with or without The Trump administration.
• 32:43
  Speaker 2: No doubt we will return To these issues But today I'd like to thank our guests Emma Bardi Fred Baumer and Carolina Eichhoff For their shared insight And expertise.
• 32:54
  Speaker 2: You can find links to their latest work and publications in the podcast's show notes.
• 32:57
  Speaker 2: And if you like what you hear, you can subscribe to us on all of our usual places including Spotify & Apple... ...you could also keep up-to-date with the latest analyses from SWP on Blue Sky and on LinkedIn!
• 33:08
  Speaker 2: Todays episode was edited by Maya Dana.
• 33:11
  Speaker 2: Thank you for tuning in.