|
Back to Index
The Big Question: Who are the Elders, and can they do anything to
resolve world crises?
Archie Bland,
The Independent (UK)
November 25, 2008
View article
on the Independent (UK) website
Why
are we asking this now?
The political
and humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe has dropped off the news agenda
in recent months, as events there have stagnated and reverted to
the deeply depressing status quo. In an attempt to change that,
a group of influential world leaders who have now left their public
offices arranged a visit.
The group -
known as the Global Elders - had intended to draw attention
to food shortages and a cholera outbreak. But on Saturday, just
when the visit was supposed to begin, the delegation issued a statement
saying that it had been barred from Zimbabwe by the Mugabe regime,
which refused to issue them visas. That snub has led to questions
about the nature of their influence in world affairs - and
what good, if any, they can do.
Who
are the Elders?
The Elders are
a kind of political dream team, a dozen of the most widely respected
world leaders alive today, whose glittering CVs and unimpeachable
commitment to human rights are supposed to open doors that would
remain closed to less feted figures. Their figurehead is secular
saint Nelson Mandela; the group also includes Jimmy Carter, Kofi
Annan, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former Irish president and UN Commissioner
for Human Rights Mary Robinson, and, in absentia, Burmese democracy
activist Aung Sun Suu Kyi. The group may well have the highest concentration
of Nobel prize-winners in the world, with five of its 12 members
recipients of the honour.
What
are they for?
The idea is
that they can exert influence and bring attention to humanitarian
crises that might otherwise go unnoticed or unsolved. Between the
12 of them, they command access to an unrivalled network of leaders
that, in theory, means that they can make a difference in contexts
where other means like governmental interventions might have failed.
The whole group
meets twice a year, and smaller delegations travel to crisis-ridden
areas in the hope of finding solutions. Jimmy Carter argues that
the group can "fill an existing void in the world community."
"Almost impervious to the consequences of outside criticism,"
he says, they have "opportunities for unrestrained analysis
of important and complex issues, the evolution of suggestions, and
for sharing our ideas with the general public and with others who
might take action to resolve problems."
How
did the Elders come together?
By the good
offices of supreme entrepreneur Richard Branson and music pioneer
Peter Gabriel. In 1999, the two men had a conversation about the
potential benefit of an organisation that followed the "village
elders" model of influence, whereby the wisdom of the most
senior members of a community carries great weight.
Branson, who
had got to know Mandela, broached the idea to him in 2001; and the
group formally launched in April last year, with $18m in initial
funding that Branson and Gabriel helped to raise. Since then they
have worked in Cyprus, Sudan, Kenya, and the Middle East.
Can
the model work?
The jury is
still out: the group, unlike its members, is very young. It is hard
to draw firm conclusions when the Elders' work is always bound to
be most effective in the margins, in ways that may not always be
obvious to the external observer. "I think their influence
could be limited," says Josephine Osikena, Democracy and Development
programme manager at the Foreign Policy Centre. "But because
they're international elder statespeople, there is some kind of
effect. Perhaps they can intervene and discuss in ways that the
UK government, for example, can't, because it would be seen as antagonistic."
What
evidence of their effectiveness is there?
The relative
success of the group's mission to Kenya might be seen as an example
of how they can function effectively. The arrival of Kofi Annan
et al in January this year was by no means a panacea after violent
clashes followed the last election there, and the group could not
offer any incentives beyond the weight of their names and experience
to the negotiating parties. But, says Sally Healy, Associate Fellow
of the Africa Programme at Chatham House, their sheer presence had
a calming effect. "They helped to 'freeze' the situation,"
she says, "and they created a sense that stuff was happening,
and so you didn't have to go and fight today."
Their influence,
adds Healy, can be particularly powerful in Africa, where government
is much more reliant on personal relationships than the kind of
systematic approach more prevalent in the West, and where the village
elders model is culturally significant. "Someone we might regard
as an old has-been might be seen in a different context in Kenya
or Zimbabwe," she says. "It's partly to do with tradition,
and it's partly weak institutions."
And
can they have a negative impact?
Possibly. Many
are sceptical of what one newspaper editorial said might be referred
to as a "makework scheme for ex-leaders who cannot let go".
In Israel, some saw their role as a distraction: "This is not
a conflict where people lack heroic leadership," said Robert
Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near
East Policy. "These are not issues that tend to lend themselves
to whatever these otherwise distinguished stastesmen can contribute."
Earlier this
year the Israeli government turned down an offer to mediate a ceasefire
with Hamas, with the country's UN ambassador Dan Gillerman saying
that "nothing good could come out of this initiative".
And, according to Sally Healy, "it would be very foolish to
put your eggs in the old boys' mediating network basket without
the hard-edged government diplomacy as well."
What
happened in Zimbabwe?
Zanu-PF seems
to have made a calculation that the negative PR that will result
from denying the Elders' access will be less damaging to the regime
than letting them in to observe and condemn the government's failure
to help people who are starving to death. Mugabe has attempted to
cast the group as Western stooges lacking the moral authority to
cast judgement in Zimbabwe. (The Zimbabwean government also says
that they are only postponing the trip, and that it will take place
at a later date, though few believe it.) The Elders' argument that
they are not coming to Zimbabwe with a political purpose but a humanitarian
one has fallen on stony ground - particularly in the light
of previous condemnation of the Mugabe regime by Desmond Tutu, among
others.
So can
the Elders still have an influence there?
Paradoxically,
it may be that Mugabe's decision will actually increase their long-term
influence. It confers a sense that the group are capable of meaningful
action - why ban anyone whose words would have no consequences?
- and raises the profile of the situation in Zimbabwe in a
way that might otherwise have been impossible.
The Elders are
continuing to work in neighbouring South Africa, and their statements
in the aftermath of their ban have emphasised the non-partisan,
humanitarian good that they seek to do." "We need no red-carpet
treatment from the government of Zimbabwe," said Mr Annan.
"We seek no permission other than permission to help the poor
and the desperate."
Can
the Elders succeed in changing things for the better?
Yes...
- Their connections
are remarkable. They can probably get any politician in the world
on the phone
- There's nothing
like Nelson Mandela making his feelings known about an issue to
turn the spotlight on it
- Their separation
from governments allows them to pursue what they believe is right
No...
- Past ties
to institutions like the UN means they can be dismissed as agents
of Western influence
- The temporary
blast of publicity they can bring doesn't necessarily lead to
tangible results
- The levers
available to national governments - like trade sanctions
- are far more influential in the end
a.bland@independent.co.uk
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
