Sunday Herald, UK
Dec 26 2004

Scotland aims to corner peace summit market

`Perfect venue’ for warring factions to meet
By Alan Crawford, Special Correspondent

Move over Camp David, step aside Oslo and make way for the St Andrews
Summit and the Oban Accords. Scotland is poised to take advantage of
a unique opportunity to become a world centre for peace talks.
One year on from negotiations held at Craigellachie, in Speyside,
between South Caucasus regional rivals Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Georgia, experts say that Scotland can position itself to host
further summits between battle-scarred territories.

Angus Robertson, SNP MP for Moray and the man who helped instigate
the Caucasus talks, has already been approached about a number of
potential peace and reconciliation initiatives following the
Craigellachie summit.

`These initiatives could have a Scottish dimension, either in hosting
discussions or brokering meetings,’ Robertson said. `The
possibilities are on-going and could involve the Scottish academic
community and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the future.’

Robertson, who is chairman of the all-party South Caucasus group at
Westminster, argues that Scotland should emulate Norway and sell
itself as an independent arbitrator on international conflict.

`This is flavour of the month with the UN,’ he said. `The only thing
that’s stopping us from being this force for good is ourselves,
because there’s a demand for it from the regions and people involved
in these frozen conflicts.’

The Craigellachie talks took place last December between
representatives of the republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia,
who are still at odds over the disputed enclave of Nagorno Karabakh.
The delegates were kept away from the media and treated to a
programme of events including a dinner reception at the Glenfiddich
distillery in Dufftown. The talks are widely regarded as having been
a success.

But Robertson said such events were not so much about achieving a
`result’ as about improving relations and confidence-building.

He added: `We have much to offer as a neutral meeting ground with
excellent facilities, hospitality and a history and culture that is
well-known throughout the world. It’s something we should be doing a
lot more of.

`There’s a growing market for it. There are scores of unresolved
conflicts around the world, most of which are frozen and have been
since the end of the cold war, but which are desperately in need of
resolution – and external assistance can help bring progress.’

Stephen Nash, a director of the London Information Network on
Conflicts and State-building (Links), which works toward conflict
resolution mainly in the countries of the former Soviet Union, agreed
that Scotland was `ideal’ for such work.

Nash, a former British ambassador to Georgia, Albania and Latvia,
said the Craigellachie talks had been useful in furthering discussion
of a regional assembly made up of the parliaments of Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Georgia .

`The talks at Craigellachie were a valuable contribution to that,’ he
said. `I feel it’s good not to be in a big capital city – you perhaps
feel more able to focus if you’re in a place that’s somewhat removed
from the centre of the world stage. That’s a positive quality.

`Scotland could contribute [to conflict resolution] in the way that
Norway contributes to various peace processes.’

Norway, a country of 4.5 million people, has carved out a niche as a
centre for peace and reconciliation which has seen it involved in the
Middle East peace process, as well as conflict resolution in Sri
Lanka, Guatemala, Colombia, Haiti, Sudan, Aceh, the Philippines and
elsewhere.

It first came to international prominence in 1993 with the signing of
the Oslo Accords, a series of agreements between Israel and the PLO.

In a recent speech, the Norwegian state secretary Vidar Helgesen
described his country’s role as sometimes the official facilitator of
talks, and at other times supporting countries or organisations in
their peace efforts.

Listing the country’s assets, he said Norway had a long tradition of
humanitarian action and co-operating closely with NGOs, which had led
to good networks and hands-on knowledge of various regions. It had
political consensus and `flexible resources’, both human and
financial, to support peace talks and provide development assistance.

He added: `An important asset is the fact that Norway is a small
country with no colonial past and few vested interests. We are not in
a position to pressure any parties into agreement.’

But Dr Stephen Neff, an expert on international law in armed
conflicts at Edinburgh University, sounded a cautious note over
attempts to copy Norway’s example, although he said he found the
prospect `most interesting’.

Neff questioned whether peace talks would take place under the aegis
of the UK government, the Scottish Executive or whether a private
organisation such as Links would lead the discussions.

He said: `The one example of a private body doing this kind of thing
is the Jimmy Carter Centre [which has the motto `waging peace,
fighting disease, bringing hope’], and I’m not sure what success that
group has actually had. And if it’s a private group, presumably
they’re not going to have the large pool of money that the Norwegians
have.

`Nevertheless, it’s not necessary that the centre would have a lock,
stock and barrel resolution [approach]. A mere positive contribution
towards settlements is perhaps a more realistic goal, and I don’t see
why that couldn’t be the case in Scotland.

`This is a most interesting idea. It’s a little uncertain how much
demand there would be – it’s very hard to say if Colombian guerrillas
are going to beat a path to Scotland’s door – but I’m intrigued by
the idea.’