Raimo Varynen’s conflict transformation model is somehow similar to the Jp Lederachs model except for minor differences. The model revolves around four major divisions:
- Actor transformation
- Issue transformation
- Rule transformation
- Structural transformation
- Contextual transformation
And further divided into two sub-divisions:
- Personal transformation
- Contextual transformation
Varynen identifies conflict as a means of political collectivities to defend or expand their interests in a given social structure. Combining it with the Vayrynen conflict transformation model helps us not only identify the causes but also highlight the areas where transformation is necessary. Like Lederach’s approach, Vayrynen’s Model of CT also identifies that the roots of intractable conflict are embedded in the structure of a society. And to him, as structures and conflicts are dynamic and not static, there should be a theory that should focus on the idea of transformation rather than settlement. According to Raimo Varynen,
The bulk of conflict theory regards the issues, actors, and interests as given, and on that basis, makes efforts to find a solution to mitigate or eliminate contradictions between them. Yet the issues, actors, and interests change over time as a consequence of the social, economic, and political dynamics of societies.
The civil war in Angola:
Angola, situated in the southwestern part of Africa, boasts diverse landscapes spanning from the semi-desert Atlantic coastline bordering Namibia’s “Skeleton Coast” to the sparsely inhabited rainforests inland and the rugged southern highlands. Additionally, the country includes the Cabinda exclave in the north and densely populated urban areas along the northern coast and north-central river valleys. The bustling port city of Luanda serves as both the capital and commercial hub, blending Portuguese colonial architecture with traditional African housing and modern industrial developments. In 1974, Portugal had a big change when a new government took over. They didn’t want to keep their faraway colonies anymore, including Angola. This led to a fight for power in Angola among three groups who wanted independence. The MPLA, led by Agostinho Neto, wanted Angola to be Marxist. The FNLA, led by Holden Roberto, was supported by the United States. And UNITA, led by Jonas Savimbi, had ties to the largest ethnic group in Angola. They agreed to share power but quickly turned against each other, starting a civil war.
During this war, different countries and groups got involved, like the United States, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and South Africa. The MPLA, backed by the Soviet Union and Cuba, took control of Luanda. The FNLA, supported by the United States, kept fighting but eventually lost. Meanwhile, South Africa entered Angola to stop rebels from using it as a base against them, but Cuba sent troops to help the MPLA resist. This upset the United States because it looked like their ally, UNITA, was working with South Africa, which the U.S. didn’t want to support openly.
The U.S. government faced problems at home too. President Gerald Ford wanted to give more money for the fight in Angola, but Congress said no. This made the U.S. less involved in the conflict. Eventually, the MPLA became the government of Angola, but UNITA kept fighting until its leader, Jonas Savimbi, died in 2002. The Angola crisis also affected relations between the United States, the Soviet Union, and Cuba. It made the U.S. lose trust in the Soviet Union during a time when they were trying to get along. This led to more tension between them, especially after other conflicts like the Horn of Africa and Afghanistan. It also made the U.S. stop trying to improve relations with Cuba for a while.
Actor transformation:
This tier is a component of a grassroots method since it commences at the local level, directly involving the individuals engaged in the conflict. These individuals encompass various groups like functional elites, politicians, military personnel, economists, civilians, and more. They are best perceived as “agents” who actively contribute to the conflict’s perpetuation. Agents denote any participant shaping the narrative, utilizing their initiative to alter the conflict. Such transformation might manifest through shifts in the actors’ perspectives or adjustments in their objectives.
The overthrow of Portuguese Prime Minister Marcello Caetano in 1974 officially ended the colonial empire of Angola. The major actors involved in the Angolan civil war were three liberation movements. These were MPLA, FNLA, and UNITA. The People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), formed in December of 1956 as an offshoot of the Angolan communist party, had its support from the Ambundu ethnic group. The MPLA was supported by the USSR and Cuban forces and government. On the other hand, FNLA which stands for The National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA), founded in 1962, was rooted among the Bakongo (or Kongo) people and strongly supported the restoration and defense of the Kongo empire, eventually developing into a nationalist movement supported by the government of Zaire and (initially) the People’s Republic of China. The stronger opponent that created many hurdles for the Angolan government was the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), which was established in 1966 and founded by a prominent Jonas Savimbi and had its support from Ovimbundu people. They were mainly supported by the United States (US) and South African governments. Angola officially gained independence on 11 November 1975.
Transformation:
Throughout the conflict, there were shifts in leadership, alliances, and objectives among the major actors. For example, UNITA’s transformation from a guerrilla movement to a major political force under Jonas Savimbi’s leadership played a crucial role in the dynamics of the conflict. Aside from this, South Africa agreed to grant independence and to cease support to UNITA if Cuban forces withdrew from Angola. Over time, the MPLA leadership recognized the need for political reform and inclusion. Following the death of leader Jonas Savimbi, UNITA transitioned into a legitimate political party as well, which to some extent eliminated clashes between both of them.
Personal Transformation:
It refers to the changes in perception, attitude, and behavior of the groups, actors, or individuals involved in conflict. It involves perception and narrative building through discourse confidence-building measures and elite bargaining.
Transformation:
Longstanding civil war made actors involved in this conflict somehow exhausted due to its prolonged nature. Throughout the conflict, leaders and individuals underwent personal transformations that influenced their approach to peace negotiations and reconciliation efforts. For example, the willingness of leaders like Eduardo dos Santos and Jonas Savimbi to engage in dialogue and compromise reflected personal transformations. Both leaders went for peace talks in several phases and signed various agreements.
Issue Transformation:
The major issues in which the conflict was embedded were ideological, ethnic issues, and power struggles and resources. MPLA was Marxist-Leninist discourse and later switched to a social democratic model, whereas UNITA and FNLA were far more militant and right-wing, harboring a distaste for the bourgeoisie MPLA supporters.
Transformation:
Issue transformation involves reshaping stances and altering perspectives on crucial matters that are driving a significant rift between both parties. The objective is to mend the seemingly insurmountable gap in communication. As the conflict progressed, there were attempts to address key issues such as power-sharing, ethnic representation, and resource distribution. The country also went for its first multiparty elections in 1992. Furthermore, the negotiation of the Lusaka Accord aimed to resolve issues related to governance and the integration of UNITA into the government. The death of Savimbi also facilitated new doors of negotiations between both conflicting parties.
Rule Transformation:
It refers to the norms, laws, and policies in interaction between parties. if the parties involved in conflict bring flexibility in their norms and policies, only then is transformation possible. In the Angolan Civil War, the intervention of foreign powers, control of resources, and the refusal to recognize UNITA as a legitimate political party in Angola created friction in the conflict.
Transformation:
Rule transformation in this civil war occurred as parties agreed to ceasefires, disarmament, and political reforms. For instance, the withdrawal of South African forces to some extent completely changed the rules of the game. The implementation of sanctions by the UN, such as the ban on diamond trade and the embargo on oil, influenced the behavior of the parties and contributed to rule transformation. Moreover, the signing of the Bicesse Peace Accords (1991) established a multiparty democracy and power-sharing arrangement. The Bicesse Accord was a big deal with four parts: a ceasefire, basic rules for peace in Angola, ways to solve problems between the government and UNITA, and the Protocol of Estoril, which talks about elections, military watching, keeping peace inside the country, UNITA’s political rights, how things are run, and making the Angolan Armed Forces.
Structural transformation:
Structural transformation has the most significant impact on conflict transformation, as it is the building base of the entire system. The structural aspects of the conflict encompassed political, economic, and social systems influenced by external actors.
Transformation:
The end of the Cold War removed external support for both sides, making the continuation of the war unsustainable. Structural transformation occurred through changes in governance, economic policies, and social dynamics. For example, the shift from a one-party state to a multi-party democracy after the signing of the Lusaka Accord represented a significant structural change.
Contextual transformation:
It describes alterations in the setting and dynamics of a conflict. These changes affect not just the stances of involved parties but also their motivations and responses. In the Angolan Civil War, the conflict’s setting was influenced by regional interactions, Cold War politics, and economic conditions.
Transformation:
This civil war saw changes in its context as regional alliances shifted, Cold War tensions decreased, and economic conditions evolved. For example, when Cuban troops left and the USSR stopped supporting them, it changed the regional situation of the conflict. Ussr was already dealing with and facing severe consequences in terms of the economic, political, and social aspects. They had to stop supporting their allies with military weapons and funds. Nearby countries started pushing for peace more, worried about how the conflict was affecting stability.
Conclusion:
The Angolan Civil War’s resolution involved transformations at various levels as outlined by Vayrynen’s model. The death of Savimbi, war fatigue, and a shift in the Cold War context created an opportune moment for negotiations. The peace agreements transformed the rules and structures of power, paving the way for a more inclusive and peaceful Angola. It’s important to note that achieving lasting peace is an ongoing process, and Angola continues to grapple with the legacy of the civil war.