Anna Goodman
March 21, 2016
MGMT 401: Spring, 2016
Comparing Different Approaches on How to Resolve Conflict Globally
In a world as culturally, religiously, and ethnically diverse as ours,
misunderstandings are inevitable often breed conflict. Many times, unresolved conflict
between diverse peoples can lead to violence. But, by creating easier means of
communication and negotiation, peace processes can often mitigate the worst conflicts.
Conflicts and peace processes are occurring all over the world between many diverse
cultures and peoples. Whether in El Salvador, East Timor, or currently in Syria – peace
processes have, and continue, to be important to the future of humanity and to the
upholding of humanitarian rights.
The development of multinational peace processes is not a new one; since the late
19th century mankind has been attempting to coordinate peace among nations. The Hague
Peace Conferences in 1899 and 1907 set down guidelines for laws of war and war crimes as
international laws. Although these conferences did not do much in terms of mitigating war,
they were the beginning in a long line of peace research and peace processes. Further
research in peace studies took off in the 1970s and created a platform for growth. (Tonge,
2014)
Of war and Peace
As complicated as conflict can be, so can it be to define or categorize. For instance, many
countries are wary of the term war and often refer to conflict more precisely – for example,
by referring to it as terrorism. Amid terrorism, there are often peace processes happening
in the background and away from the media’s spotlight. In order for a peace process to be
viable there must be both the involvement of combatants and the attempt to formulate and
implement an arrangement that will quell the conflict. But mitigation arrangements are a
lot more complicated than any categorization can cover. It’s a process therefore it’s
dynamic and ever-changing.
The dynamic nature of peace processes can create many opportunities for
resolution. The peace process itself is the means to an end – and it’s the means that can
create long-lasting positive relationships, or positive movements – whether or not the
desired end is met. Although peace processes often end in failure, it is the attempt to
resolve conflict that indicates that there is hope for peace building. Even futile attempts
can often lead to mini peace-processes and resolutions – and these baby-steps save lives
and create a platform for future solutions. No matter how vast or complicated, the peace
building process often requires a third party intervention that includes mitigation,
conciliation and reconciliation. The more attempts at creating peace processes, the more
successes are recorded globally.
Since peace processes are ever-changing, they are often hard to define. Each process
is unique and therefore requires unique research. Peace research is “an applied science
charged with the task not only of presenting how things actually are, but also of telling how
they should be. Just as the normative objective of medicine is health, the objective of peace
research is peace. Therefore, not only are peace researchers expected to produce original
high-quality studies, but they must also be relevant.” Relevance is critical in an increasingly
globalizing world. A peace process that worked during the First World War will need to be
adapted or reconstructed due to the transformation of technology, communication, and
weaponry.
Modern peace processes use history as a learning guide. War and conflict are
constantly changing and evolving due to improvements in technology and communication.
Explaining the persistence of conflict is challenging because of the nature of its
environments. Examples of environmental variables include geography and religion as the
basis for conflict whereby neither can be exactly replicated twice. The generally agreed
upon sequencing of peace process begins with a dialogue that explores the nature of the
conflict followed by the inclusion of public voice. The public voice becomes an important
factor for discussions and negotiations managed by an external mediator. Managing peace
processes are the first step in resolving conflict and resolving problems that precipitate
violence. In order to do so, many schools of though have emerged during the twentieth
century.
The two methodological schools of peace research that have emerged in order to
adapt, change, or recreate peace processes that are relevant to today’s conflicts are the
positive empiricists and the school of critical research. Positive empiricists value
quantitative and behavioral approaches that can be tested through measurable hypotheses.
Their results are deemed objective due to the quantitative nature of the data. Mathematical
modeling, forecasting, and analysis are the methodology used for quantifying peace
processes. Their belief is that other schools of thought are normative, judgmental, and non-
scientific. Alternatively, critical peace research believes that the positive empiricist’s
quantitative research is not objective. The critical peace researchers value qualitative data
due to it’s more specified nature. The subjectivity of specified data better defines each
individual conflict and adds more value. Critics of the critical peace research school of
thought do not believe that enough conflict data is available to create qualitative data of
value. Both schools of thought are marred by the unpredictability of human nature.
Although conflict management is gaining a stronger presence globally, conflict
prediction is ultimately marred by the incapability of predicting random acts of violence.
Many scholars referred to game-theory as a means of predicting conflict. Game theory,
using the “prisoners dilemma,” plots two prisoners against each other who can either have
perceived maximized mutual gains through cooperation, minimal mutual gains through
partial disagreement to cooperate, and zero gains from mutual disagreement to cooperate.
Prisoners dilemma uses rationality and false-perceptions as a means to deduce outcomes.
While non-cooperation is likely the most beneficial outcome for a prisoner, their
perception that cooperation will lead to the best outcome is used as bait. Since rational
choice models would indicate that individuals strive to increase their benefit and therefore
cooperate, within the peace process this would lead to peace as long as all parties can
perceive the gains for their own self-interest. But, “peace doe not arrive from altruism,
benign goodwill, cognizance of rival arguments or self doubt, but is instead arrives at via
calculation.” When combatants are unaware of their enemy’s actions, it’s a difficult
situation for the prisoner’s dilemma where cooperation can lead to mutual gains, but only
one-sided cooperation can lead to limited or zero gains. By using the prisoner’s dilemma,
many negotiators have begun to use “mutually hurting stalemate” as a means of
negotiation.
Mutually hurting stalemate occurs when outright victory is deemed unattainable
and the cost of pursuing it is not acceptable; i.e. a dead end. Rational choice models,
wherein further gain (through violence) is unattainable, mediators can help both sides
realize that non-violence could be beneficial to all. Selling the idea to both sides is
problematic, but important. Perceptions are what lead to rational choice models, and as
long as the perception is that of mutual gains, peace processes truly begin to have a chance.
There are many examples of mutually hurting stalemates enabling conflicts to move out of
deadlock. (Tonge, 2014)
El Salvador - Chapultepec Peace Accord
It became apparent to the El Salvador government that while the Farabundo Marti
National Liveration (FMNL) Front occupied one third of the country, they could not be
entirely defeated. Thus, a stalemate. If they continued on their current course, there would
likely be no opportunity for gains. Additionally, the FMNL also recognized that while they
were strong enough to hold what they had, they could not move forward and occupy El
Salvador. This would lead to no further gains. Thus, the Chapultepec peace accord was put
into action at the moment that mutually hurting stalemates was both recognized, and
perceived by both sides. The peace agreement:
Concluded the peace process in El Salvador. It deals with the
comprehensive reform of the armed forces, civilian police, justice system,
electoral system, economic and social arrangements, land and property
issues. The agreement also includes provisions for the political
participation of the FMLN and for a final ceasefire with the disarmament,
demobilisation and reintegration of the armed groups. (Tonge, 2014)
East Timor – Communication to Facilitate Peace Processes
Another example of a mutually hurting stalemate enabling peace processes
happened between Indonesian forces controlling the area and East Timorese guerillas
demanding regional independence. After a two decade long conflict that contributed to
20,000 deaths, both parties reached deadlock with no further room to benefit. The biggest
issue in this conflict was lack of communication and negotiation between parties. Once
diplomatic spokespeople were presented to each party, with the UN as a backer, a
referendum vote was conducted. The vote was in favor of independence, and (after some
further violence), was ultimately awarded in 2002. (Tonge, 2014)
Geneva Peace Talks on Syria III
After four and a half years of armed conflict and more than 250,000 Syrian deaths,
peace talks are underway between the Syrian government and opposition in Geneva and
the United Nations. The conflict began as anit-government protests and escalated into a
civil war between supporters of President Bashar al-Assad and those who support a
democratic government. Furthermore, militants from the Islamic State have also engaged
in violence within Syria and have added another dimension to the conflict. War crimes have
been rampant among all parties, and the first demand of the UN Security Council has been
to end the use of indiscriminate weapons in populated areas. Nerve-gas bombs were
dropped in 2013, killing hundreds and sparking concern for the use of chemical weapons.
Blame for those was ricocheted between armed forces, but Assad agreed to the complete
removal of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, although the use of chemical weaponry has
still be documented since. Adding to the conflict is the international displacement of 4.5
million Syrian refugees. The international burden that the humanitarian crisis has inflicted
is increasingly becoming an issue for the U.N. and for the countries accepting refugees.
The chaos and indecisiveness of defeat of all sides inflicted in the Syrian conflict led
the UN to implement the Geneva Communique in 2013, which “envisages a transitional
governing body with full executive powers formed on the basis of mutual consent.” (BBC,
2016) The failure of this conflict resolution, known as Geneva II, was blamed on the Syrian
government’s refusal to cooperate or discuss demands of the opposition. Although outright
resolution has yet to be achieved, smaller peace processes are laying the groundwork for
future talks. One of the smaller achievements is the end of a three-year siege on a suburb in
Syria in December, 2015. Now, ceasefire and transitional government talks are in progress
between the UN Security Council, Russia, and the Syrian government. But the conflict goes
much deeper – while Russia supports Assad, along with Iran and Lebanon’s Islamist
Hezbollah movement, the mostly Sunni opposition has support from Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Jordan, US, UK and France. Now the Geneva talks revolve mostly around Assad’s
reign, and the need to end it. Russia has currently withdrawn which signals that Syria may
be taking the peace-talks more seriously. Assad’s fate is in question.
U.N. mediator Staffan de Mistura describes Syria's political
transition as "the mother of all issues" and, emboldened by the
Russian and U.S. muscle that brought the participants to the
negotiating table, he refuses to drop the subject.
He says: “The government is currently focusing very much on
principles, which are necessary in any type of common ground on
the transition," …. "But I hope next week, and I have been saying
so to them, that we will get their opinion, their details on how they
see the political transition taking place.” (Reuters, 2016)
With Russia withdrawing, a deadlock has been set into motion. If negotiators and
mediators can convince both parties that they have reached a mutually hurting stalemate,
progress may be possible. The issues on the table are humanitarian access: allowing the UN
to help refugees inside of Syrian battlegrounds; ceasefire: although some ceasefire has
occurred, wildcards like the Islamic State continue to fire; and the issue of political
detainees: Syrians who attempted to flee but are now being held in Syrian jails and largely
being executed. (Wintour, 2016)
The atrocious situation is currently undergoing peace talks, with the hope of
establishing a transitional governing body that will create a constitution and a democracy.
The hope is that this transitional government is established within six months, but the
reality is ultimately unknown. Perhaps having so many nations involved at this point will
be the final push to create the perception of a mutually hurting stalemate. Just the fact that
so many attempts at peace talks have already occurred is positive, but the reality inside of
the Syrian border is barbaric. The inconsistency and lack of empathy that human nature
often projects creates a complicated situation for any peace process. Hopefully this attack
on humanity will be resolved before too much more savagery has been allowed to go on.
The power and nature of conflict is so complex and involved that often times these
issues will go on for years. Hopefully resolving something as vast as the Syrian crisis will
create new groundwork for future prevention. Perhaps a more subjective and quantitative
approach must be taken in order to truly find means to end this brutal political and
religious battle. And while most westerners may not have a great understanding of the
actual religious conflicts, all people can understand a humanitarian crisis and see that we,
as a whole, should try and create a world where these sorts of atrocities are no longer
tolerated.
References
Rodgers, Lucy, David Gritten, James Offer, and Patrick Asare. "Syria: The Story of the
Conflict - BBC News." BBC News. BBC, 11 Mar. 2016. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.
"Syria Peace Talks Grind toward Pivotal Assad Question." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 20
Mar. 2016. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.
Tonge, Jonathan. Comparative Peace Processes. Polity Press, 2014, Print.
Wintour, Patrick. "Syria Peace Talks: What Are the Issues?" The Guardian. Guardian News
and Media, 21 Mar. 2016. Web. 21 Mar. 2016