| dc.description.abstract | The Nairobi peace process that was convened by President Moi of Kenya represents a individual state action taken to fill a void left by traditional conflict managers In post Col-War Africa, characterized as it is with a neglect of Africa by the world's only remaining superpower and the major powers of Europe that were once colonial master in the continent. In the past these western powers played a major role in managing conflicts in
Africa, as some of those conflicts were all about their own interests in the African soil.
Another category of entities that have managed Africa's conflicts in the past are
international or inter-governmental organizations, namely the United nations organization, The organization of African unity and a host of interstate organizations within the major sub-regions of the continent. If history is anything to go by, these organizations have not been very effective in dealing with conflicts that occur within African states, as this has not been their mandate for some time. Intervention by individual sates has produced mixed results, but often this form of intervention has been minimal, often overshadowed by super power and bigger power interventions. As the western powers withdraw from African affairs in general, and African conflicts in particular, and as international organizations begin to reinvent themselves to be relevant to the new challenge of responding to internal conflicts in Africa, there may be nothing wrong with individual state, especially those states whose neighbours experience internal conflicts, from intervening diplomatically to seek peaceful end to those conflicts.
It is demonstrated in this study that even as intervention by individual state is conducted to fill the apparent void created by the absence of traditional conflict managers, its chances for success depends on whether a conflict is purely internal or is an internal one with considerable external linkages. In the case of the later, the management process must take into account all the actors at play and include the in the management process, otherwise those left out will undermine the management process that they feel fails to take them on board. It is the responsibility of the individual head of state that is initiating the management process to have a complete reading of the conflict, including all the relevant actors and issues at play in the conflict he or she seeks to manage. | en |
