Why we should integrate African value systems into humanitarian law

____________________

OPINION

By Dr Majwala Meaud Major

In the traditional African society, conflict may generally exist whenever or wherever incompatible events occurred and may result in-win-lose character. The resolution, transformation and management of conflict may, however, produce win-win situation too.

Truth is a covenant logo that disputants or parties in conflict must not miss. In contemporary African society, nobody cares about the truth. If Africans have to put the falling apart together, their original values must be revisited.

Conflict is as natural as the concept of peace, contrary to the global or universal conception. Africans have particular ways of conceptualizing conflict. Traditional definitions of conflict regard it as-a struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power and resources in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralize, injure or eliminate their rivals.

However, conflict may generally exist wherever or whenever incompatible activities occur and may result in-win-lose character. The resolution, transformation and management of conflict may also produce a win-win situation.

Each person, race, or identity group have their own ways of doing things, especially as they concern conflict resolution. While in Europe, for example, the police are an agency of crime detection, several African societies relied on oath-taking and divination in pre-colonial times. These methods still thrive today in some places on a very limited scale alongside torture and skull breaking in the name of interrogation and confession extraction.

Also, while the Western world placed emphasis on a judicial system presided over by lawyers and judges, traditional Africa uses a council of elders, the king‘s court, people's (open place) assemblies, etc., for dispute settlement and justice dispensation. Africans also had their peculiar ways and manners of effecting peacemaking, peace building, and confidence building.

These peculiar and very effective methods have today been wiped out by the forces of colonialism, including psycho-war forces. This resulted to instability and retarded development. Dialogue between disputants is today replaced by fighting, and the mediating role of elders and other more peaceful institutions as age-grades, highly revered societies, are replaced in several clashes with police actions (tear gas), military peace-keeping operations, and endless court proceedings.

This reminded us of the old saying that a people live out their culture and tradition for self-confidence, self-reliance, positive change and stability, and that a people without their culture are as good as dead and forgotten. A society which neglects the instructive value of its past for its present and future cannot be self-confident and self-reliant and will therefore lack internally generated dynamism and stability.

Moreover, the essence of dispute settlement and conflict resolution in traditional African States include to remove the root-causes of the conflict; reconcile the conflicting parties genuinely; to preserve and ensure harmony, and make everybody involved in the resolved conflict happy and be at peace with each other again, and this required getting at truth; to set the right milieu for societal production and development; to promote good governance, law and order, to provide security of lives and property and to achieve collective well-being and happiness.

These are different from what is obtained today, where nobody cares about the truth. If Africans have to put the falling apart together, their original values must be revisited.

There are many gaps in international humanitarian law. Firstly, many people in Africa, including non-state armed groups, are sceptical of the international legal system. Governments and non-state actors see it as an unwelcome intrusion and an extension of neo-colonialism. Secondly, international humanitarian law is state-focused. This weakens its ability to regulate the conduct and behaviour of non-state armed groups. These groups cannot become parties to international humanitarian law treaties. It is thus unsurprising that they don’t comply with those rules.

The deficiencies of the law in protecting victims of armed conflict are evident in the deliberate targeting of civilians, obstruction of humanitarian aid, and abuse of vulnerable groups in Gaza, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. For the law to be relevant, effective and authoritative, its hierarchical and binary view of the world must change.

The current view suggests that there is only one “right way” of doing things, informed by Western norms and values. It is prudent that African protection mechanisms should be adopted. Many African customs and indigenous cultural practices limited the excesses of warfare, like deliberate starvation and wilful attacks on civilians.

International Humanitarian Law seeks to limit the excesses of warfare and regulate the conduct of armed hostilities. But it is often ignored. There is growing importance of integrating indigenous practices into the application of humanitarian law in armed hostilities. This justifies a case for Ubuntu; in that the moral philosophy of ubuntu (humanness) demands humane treatment of others, even enemies. It opposes practices such as torture and mass atrocities. The prominent Ndebele proverb ‘Inkosi vinkosi ngabantu’ (“A chief is a chief through his people”) can illustrate my argument well. We can argue that many African societies had–and still have–in-built measures of security and protection for people, including the most vulnerable.

The proverb shows that African codes of conduct sometimes mirror the tenets of international humanitarian law. Humanitarian law guides the conduct and obligations of nations and individuals in conflicts.

It also applies to neutral nations and people with protected status. For example, the African values of ubuntu and humanitarianism are held; different stakeholders will always extend a helping hand and shelter refugees fleeing the social and political upheaval of the senseless war in Africa. The communities and cultural leaders thereof treat prisoners of war humanely. This is consistent with the philosophy of “humanity first”. Traditionally, Africans accord even their adversaries respect and dignity. Traditionally, Africans oppose such inhumane practices as torture, looting and dehumanising war captives.

A case in point is that the indigenous communities of southern Africa used folk tales, proverbs and riddles to promote humanitarian protection principles and prevent mass atrocities during armed hostilities. These were deployed to advise, warn, reprimand and instil positive values. Embedded in these practices are moral values such as humanness, respect, hospitality and dignity. Take, for instance, the Ndebele proverb Isisu somhambi asingakanani singanophonjwana lwembuzi (“a traveller’s stomach is the size of a goat’s horn”). It implores host communities to provide relief–food and shelter–to those fleeing conflict and persecution.

The underlying message is that providing for a stranger will not deplete one’s food banks. A visitor ought to have all the conveniences of a homestead. Another example is the Kiganda proverb okalya dda kadda dda (“past acts have a way of catching up with a person”). This proverb can be applied broadly to everyday life. However, in war, it encouraged humane treatment of prisoners of war and discouraged acts of retribution.

When it comes to the protection of civilians; many pre-colonial societies in Africa had well-defined and sophisticated humanitarian protection systems. These were designed to shield vulnerable groups from the effects of armed conflict. They resemble modern international humanitarian law protection regimes that prohibit attacks on civilians and ill-treatment of protected persons.

Many of these can be built into international humanitarian law. Integrating these customary practices into humanitarian law requires structural changes within international law. It also requires openness to diverse cultural perspectives. Incorporating African customs into humanitarian law could provide a framework that resonates more deeply with local actors, in particular non-state armed groups. They are often the primary parties in armed conflicts in Africa.

Engagement with non-state actors is crucial. By highlighting what’s common to humanitarian law principles and African customs, international organisations like the Red Cross might get buy-in from more groups. Integrating African customs into humanitarian law would involve policy shifts at the United Nations. It would also need greater representation of African scholars, historians and leaders in these discussions. Using an African lens would enrich international humanitarian law, making it more accessible and increasing its impact where it is most needed.

The writer is a Member of Humanity Direct Team and president of Sustainable World Initiative-East Africa