Despite the progress that has been made on some key issues like humanitarian, socio-economic, military and other operational matters, the paramount issues, i.e. that of the governance of Sierra Leone and power-sharing, remain unresolved between the parties. On present showing, it is most unlikely that we will get any closer to a settlement this week and the next, or at all. It has led many people to start speculating that it will not be long before the talks break down and fighting resumes in earnest.

Of course everyone hopes that it will not come to this and that sanity will prevail over these talks even at this late hour so that the hope that Sierra Leoneans have nurtured in the last three weeks while they have been taking place will not turn out to have been misplaced.

It may be argued that it is too early to hold an inquest now into what has happened, or has been going on so far, including into why it has taken this long to arrive at a compromise. But we will do exactly that now.

Yes! Compromise, because otherwise what else would they be talking about if not aiming to adjust their differences in such a way, or by a formula, that will enable all sides to accommodate each other one fine day on our little patch called Sierra Leone? Neither side has won outright victory in the arena of war after years of slogging it out. You would think therefore that they are in Lomé primarily to try an alternative way of resolving these hostilities. 

You do not go to talks to end a war that you have been fighting for eight years while, at the same time, maintaining a position or attitude you took at the commencement of hostilities.  Implicit in the acceptance of negotiations as an alternative to war is the possibility for both parties to concede aspects of the opposing side's case and to compromise on issues otherwise considered precious to their side. If neither party came to these negotiations with such expectations then frankly they have no business being in Togo. Besides, they would also have led all of us up the garden path.

The pressures of popular expectation mean that the parties to this conflict must, one hopes, not deliberately scupper these talks just for their own selfish reasons. We want to believe that even they are now very weary of the war and its rather telling effect on the morale and well being of their own supporters. We therefore have a glimmer of hope and are slightly optimistic in believing that when push comes to shove and all the chips are down, the warring sides would themselves want to take the opportunity to start living as normal human beings. One is told that there can at times be a terrible strain on the mind of even a hardened fighter or killer, since every now and again a bit of humanity (as we know it) percolates into their psyche and can cause real problems of conflict within that individual.

The peace talks were not just a way of setting free the hostage population of Sierra Leone but  also  creating a path, let's even say a face-saving path, for all parties towards an honourable and less painful way out of a long, stupid, and purposeless war.  Now, for the sake of argument, assuming there is some motive for the public good in the decision by all sides to get to the negotiating table, why has it become so difficult for them to agree, knowing all too well what is at stake if they fail to reach a settlement.

The reasons are many but we dare to discuss just a few in this column.

We have mentioned some of these in our previous editions: For example: the fear of revenge and the uncertainty, in the case of AFRC/RUF junta soldiers and supporters, of their acceptance by civil society. 

Then there is the sheer hatred on all sides from those who have lost relatives, friends as well property, not to mention those who have suffered physically at the hands of the opposite side. It is not easy to negotiate with someone who, you believe, was responsible for the death, maiming or execution of a friend, relative or co-fighter. It is never easy to concede anything to anyone who may have brought everlasting unhappiness on you or your friends. 

There is also the pressure from the group or "tribe". Both sides have followers with, in most cases, set minds. The challenge for negotiators is for them to try and take on board as much of their group's views, expectations and feelings because without their endorsement, or at least acknowledgement, implementation of the resulting agreement would be difficult, if not impossible. But that should not stop negotiators applying their own independent judgement and asserting their own authority.

Consider thus the dilemma (partly of his own making) facing President Kabbah and the government following a Civil Defence Force (CDF) campaign, crudely passed off as a civil society action, last Thursday (17/6/99), during which citizens of Freetown were terrorised into staying indoors under penalty of physical assault and beatings. In what has been variously described as a faked "mass protest" against power sharing - one of the realistic options being discussed for a possible settlement - life in the capital was brought to a virtual standstill. Such contrived action and coded language from the government side can be intimidating for the negotiators. The government responded to the CDF's usurpation of people's civil rights and their glaring substitution of these rights with a discernible "group" interest rather tamely. It ought to have been condemned very strongly by President Tejan Kabbah in a show of strong leadership. But instead we had a wishy-washy statement in which we were assured that "Lomé will take note of what the civilian population is saying".

It is this lack of decisive leadership and direction that could spell doom for the talks in Lomé. The CDF does not represent everybody in Sierra Leone. They have done the country proud in stopping the bullies of the RUF and the AFRC Junta having a free rein over the rest of the population. But this does not give them the licence to boss every body around as they please.  Nor can they pretend to be the barometer of the "common good". In a very short space of time, just like the AFRC and NPRC before them, they will alienate the very civilian population whom they say they are protecting. The fact is that the CDF like any group, have their own rotten apples and clearly there are factions out of control, manipulated by certain ambitious SLPP ministers and officials. Sadly, these days, no one seems to be in charge of the CDF. They appear to be a law unto themselves. Why should they unilaterally block one of the options for peace in Sierra Leone? And why are they not represented at these talks themselves?

The RUF's attitude to these talks is another sore point that could lead to a breakdown. First we do not know if any settlement that is agreed will be sold on the rebel lines. It happened with the Abidjan Accord when, with nothing politically rewarding to take back to their fighters, the RUF stalled on implementation of the Accord. The absence of the fighting men from these talks is perhaps the biggest threat to any peace deal. Where is Sam "Maskita" Bockarie?  Where is Eldred Collins? And where is Lt Col John Paul Koroma? These are key role players in the fighting and their presence would have given the necessary assurance to Sierra Leoneans that this time they meant business (for peace). Secondly, we do not doubt the adulation that Corporal Foday Sankoh personally enjoys among his troops and followers but we cannot be certain to what extent his negotiators will be able to sell the decision taken at these talks to his fighters if an agreement has been reached that falls far short of their expectations.

The final problem that is constantly bedevilling these talks is the rather disgraceful rivalry between the various international diplomats who are masquerading as facilitators in Lomé. They have got it into their heads that they must decorate their mantelpieces with medals for clinching a peace deal for Sierra Leone and thus add to the list of achievements in their CVs.  At Yamoussoukro, Ivory Coast,Abidjan in 1996 they were all at loggerheads - UN, OAU and Commonwealth diplomats - all trying to outdo each other as the more important. (This editor was present for some of that time). In the process the real business of Sierra Leone became secondary. A deal had to be done; whether it worked or not was not the issue. 

It is quite possible for the Lomé talks to be derailed in similar fashion. But these meddlesome people, who are not Sierra Leoneans, should know that their role as mediators is not to dictate to the parties. In the current edition of Focus on Sierra Leone, this editor discussed the subject, giving pointers in the correct direction (See here). It is obvious that these have not been heeded. Mediation Committee members have gone to these talks with their own fixed positions.   Instead of getting the parties to talk it out, they are imposing solutions on them. And they are rushing them towards any deal? So once again Sierra Leoneans are not being allowed to determine their own future.

Our point is that if Sierra Leoneans are left on their own, as indeed the South Africans and the Mozambicans were, we might solve this crisis even if it takes some extra time, knowing fully well that the consequence of failure is a return to war. People will not want that. 

Too many people have meddled in this affair too often and it has not been helpful. Now they say that Britain is helping to train (and arm) 5,000 new soldiers. But to do what? The job that 15,000 Ecomog Nigerian troops have so far not quite done yet? What good will this be against the "disbanded" but still intact, well trained and highly motivated ex-SLAF soldiers? Why the haste to put up a new army when that should be one of the issues upon which all the parties should agree for it to succeed?

If this bout of talks fails, then perhaps we should try and involve agencies whose fairness and impartiality is of universal knowledge such as Saint' Egidio (considering the constructive role that Italian Bishop Biguzzi of Makeni Diocese in the Northern Province of Sierra Leone has been playing lately), or even the Quakers!

Click 15/6/99 for last Saturday's commentary