ROLE OF DIPLOMACY IN CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
AND PEACE KEEPING
“Camp David Accords: Analyzed by Conflict Theories”
Assignment of Problems in Developing Country Class
Ghiffari Yusuf Muhammad Arsyad
(20120510057)
International Program of International Relation
Faculty of Social and Political Studies
Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
Table of Content
 Introduction:
 Conflict and Peace
 Research question
 Theoretical framework
 Hypothesis
 Content:
 Relation of Conflict and Development
 The Camp David Accords
 Conflict Management Perspective Analysis
 Conflict Resolution Perspective Analysis
 Conflict Transformation Perspective Analysis
 Conclusion:
 Reference:
Introduction
Conflict and Peace
Conflict or a disagreement will always closely associated to human interaction, as one
form of how human communicate with each other, conflict has become an inseparable
aspects in the society. Conflict could arose from inside of a group of people or come from
outside of the group, in the context of nations, same rules were applied, internal conflicts
could occur and disturb the stability of a nation, while external conflict which could come
from foreign nations could also bring the same threat into the nation. Internal conflicts could
come in a form of revolution, coup d’état, civil wars such as culture, religion, or ethnic
conflicts, and others. While external conflict which sourced from outside the countries could
come in form of a territorial disputes, political or economy disagreements and so on. we try to
more emphasizing our scope in the external conflict between nations since this conflict
involving a very large group of people, a nation.
Conflict always associated by a destructions and also chaos, Conflict is rarely seen as
constructive; however, in certain contexts (such as competition in sports), moderate levels of
conflict can be seen as being mutually beneficial, facilitating understanding, tolerance,
learning, and effectiveness. 1 Some also says that conflict is a necessary process to be
experienced in order to achieve peace, and then if we try to see conflict as a greater process to
achieve peace, we must see the conflict as a learning process toward a greater goal and better
outcomes, rather than just a single time or an instant phenomenon.
Because of this, in this paper, I would like to try to explore more about how conflict
theories see a process of conflict resolution as a result diplomacy and negotiation process. I
would like to examine how significant diplomacy process-in this case is the Camp David
Accord could resolve Israel and Egypt conflicting relations which has lasted for 30 years,
until the accord occurred and the year after it resulted in peace treaty between them.
1
Sophia Jowett (2007). Social Psychology in Sport. Human Kinetics. p. 34
Research question:
“Comparing how Camp David Accords observed and analyzed from different conflict
theory perspective, Conflict Management, Conflict Resolution, and Conflict Transformation
theory.”
Theoretical framework:
In this paper I would like to analyze the case of Camp David Accord using three
Conflict Theory, the conflict management, conflict resolution, and conflict Transformation
theory in order to give us a different perspective how these theory see a same process of
conflict settlement and what kind of result that this theory try to achieve.
Hypothesis:
The three conflict theory will be able to explain and analyzed the event with their own
variables with a different perspective, such as the Conflict Resolution will emphasize in the
result, while conflict management will emphasize the management of conflict and the
Conflict transformation will see the process and bigger to be achieved from the event.
Content
Relation of Conflict and Development
If conflict has been understand as disputes, then development could be understand as
progress or growth that make something become more advanced. 2 Every progress or
advancement of a country is always considered as a development, include in the process of
conflict management, or peace keeping actions made by the country.
Sometimes conflict do cause some recession in development process of a country,
because during a conflict especially in the scale of a war with other country, a condition of a
country will be unstable and not secure for any development progress to be made. Conflict in
a country will disturb its market stability because of the need of the state to maintain its
military power to preserve the country security, the priority of the market will be directed to
fulfill the needs of the country of capital and natural resources which is in most of the
developing county are the main commodity of their economy, and it‟s directed to support the
warfare of the country, this condition create insecurities in the economy of the state and
damaging the progress of country development since economy is the main supporting aspects
of the process.
At another perspective, conflict are seen as the trigger or momentum to stimulate an
economic growth, such as the military Keynesian-ism theories who see government should
increase the spending in military sector in order to increase its economic growth3. Therefore
the existence of conflict, or more specifically military conflict between states are needed and
used as a tool to facilitate a country to achieve a development in economy, and later be
followed by other sector.
2
Cambridge, Dictionary Online, Accessed on 30 December 2014 HTTP//:dictionary.cambridge.org
The term 'military Keynesianism' refers to economic policies in which the government devotes large amounts
of spending to the military in order to foster economic growth. Custers, Peter (2010). "Military Keynesian-ism
today: an innovative discourse". Abstracts, accessed on http://rac.sagepub.com/content/51/4/79 on 30
December 2014
3
The Camp David Accord:
A state of war had existed between Egypt and the State of Israel since the establishment
of Israel in 1948. In the first three Arab-Israeli wars, Israel decisively defeated Egypt. As a
result of the 1967 war, Israel occupied Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, the 23,500-square-mile
peninsula that links Africa with Asia.
In 1972, Sadat expelled 20,000 Soviet advisers from Egypt and starts to create new
diplomatic relation with the U.S., which is Israel's key ally. Then, on October 6, 1973,
Egyptian and Syrian forces launched a joint attack against Israel. It was in Yom Kippur, the
holiest day of the year for Jews, and Israeli forces were surprised by the attack. A U.S. airlift
of arms aided Israel, but President Richard Nixon delayed the emergency military aid for
seven days as a tacit signal of U.S. sympathy for Egypt. This kind of action is what Egypt
expect from its new open relation with the U.S. In November, a cease-fire between EgyptianIsraeli was secured by the United States.
Although Egypt had again suffered military defeat against its Jewish neighbor, the
initial Egyptian successes greatly enhanced Sadat's prestige in the Middle East and provided
him an opportunity to seek peace. In November 1977 Sādāt initiated a dramatic direct contact
with Israel and made a visit to Jerusalem, where he spoke to the Israeli Knesset (parliament).
However, a reciprocal visit by Begin was unsuccessful, and no progress was made toward
peace. The U.S. first lady, then suggested to her husband Jimmy Carter, that he invite Sādāt
and Begin to Camp David, in rural Maryland, where the relative privacy might provide a
setting for a breakthrough.
The two leaders accepted Carter‟s invitation, and the summit began on September 5,
1978, and lasted for 13 days. It was considered as unusual phenomena when the heads of
state to engage in a summit meeting at whom have a doubtful result. Not only had Egypt and
Israel been at war for decades, but the personality differences of the leaders promised to
complicate the dialogue.
All three men were accompanied by their leading foreign policy advisers; He insisted
that there be no direct press coverage of the meetings, fearing it would have a negative effect
on negotiations. After three days of negotiations, the heated discussions reached an impasse,
and direct discourse between Sādāt and Begin became impossible. Carter then compiled a
single document that encompass a resolution of the major issues, presented the proposals to
each leader in separate meetings and rooms, assess their comments, and redrafted the
manuscript several times, shuttling the manuscript back and forth for their review.
Prospects for a settlement at Camp David appeared depressing as the days passed, that
Sādāt even threatened to leave, and Carter began planning to return to the White House and
suffer political consequences of failure. An agreement was reached on the final day, however
at the last minute, Begin agreed to allow the Knesset to decide the fate of the settlements
Israelis had established on the Sinai Peninsula.
The peace treaty that Israel and Egypt signed in March 1979 closely reflected President
Carter‟s proposals at Camp David and formally ended the state of war that had existed
between the two countries. Israel agreed to withdraw from Sinai, and Egypt promised to
establish normal diplomatic relations between the two countries and open the Suez Canal to
Israeli ships.
Conflict Management Perspective Analysis:
Conflict management theorists see violent conflicts as an impossible thing to be
removed, because it has become the consequence of differences of values and interests within
and between communities. The tendency to violence arises from existing institutions and
historical relationships, as well from the existence of power distribution. According to the
conflict management theorist, resolving such conflicts is viewed as unrealistic option. The
things which can be done to the conflict are to manage and contain them, and at one point
will reach a significant conciliation in which violence may be put aside and normal politics
will resumed.
Conflict management is the art of suitable involvement to achieve political settlements,
particularly by those who have the power and resources to give pressure on the conflicting
parties in order to bring them to settle. It is also the art of designing appropriate institution to
guide the inevitable conflict into appropriate channels such as special committee of conflict
such as the creation of United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor(UNTAET).
Citing the words of Bloomfield and Reilly:
“Conflict management is the positive and constructive handling of difference and
Divergence. Rather than advocating methods for removing conflict, [it] addresses the
more Realistic question of managing conflict: how to deal with it in a constructive
way, how to bring Opposing sides together in a cooperative process, how to design a
practical, achievable, Cooperative system for the constructive management of
difference (Bloomfield and Reilly 1998, 18).”4
Seeing that the conflict between Egypt and Israel comes from ideological and values of
religion differences then confrontation between them are in evitable, Egypt whom at the time
are a member of Arab league, and on the time when Israel are in the process to gain its
independence, it provoke an opposition from the Arab League, and then create the ArabIsraeli War. After the long standing confrontation, Egypt has feel that it cannot continue more
confrontation with Israel, since Egypt has lost the region of Sinai which are a strategic asset
for them, while Israel could also be considered on a stalemate position because of the
confrontation they have limited access to the Suez canal and has lots of boycotts and
restriction.
At this phase both of the country has reach a stalemate condition which according to
Conflict management theories both parties will try to find a resolution and contain their
violence conflict and try to reconcile the solution, by the effort from President Sadat and also
Prime Minister Begin to try to start open relation by accepting a visit (by Sadat) and followed
by the other party to do the same (even though fail), has proven the effort of both party to
manage the conflict and start finding solution.
Mentioned above that “conflict management is the art of suitable involvement to
achieve political settlements, particularly by those who have the power and resources to give
pressure on the conflicting parties in order to bring them to settle”, this is what have been
done by United States by involving in the disputes and act as the mediator to help resolve the
conflict. One of the reason why Charter want to be involved is to realizing his vision to
resolve and bring peace in Middle East. Charter has positioned him self as the neutral party
and a mediator between the conflicting Egypt and Israel. Charter also give another significant
contriution to the accords (which later will be a peace treaty) by his effort on facilitating the
two leader states, when both of the leader can‟t discuss in face to face, then Charter has
4
Hugh Miall (2004), Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task, P3
become a “shuttle” between both of tem and at the same time preparing a best solution for
both of the country. The act of Jimmy charter shutlling to one party to another in order to
achieve an agrement. Now days, the act of charter could be understand as the “Shuttle
diplomacy”.
Both Egypt and Israel has resolve their disputes with the supported by U.S in facility
and reconciliation process, it‟s one of the benefits gained by the conflicting parties but one of
the benefits of the involvement of U.S. It is the development of relation between either Israel
or Egypt with the United States, whom until now are still the significant actor in the
international world. The Charter involvement as the “powerful” country that use his power
and his bargaining position as a big country has give a pressure to both of the country to
resolve their disputes in exchange of a better benefits, which in this case is the resolution of
disputes in peace treaty and the prospect to cooperate with the United States. With all the
involvement of United States and also how both of the country put aside their interest and ego
to cooperate in better benefits is the act of conflict management, and has resulted a better
development in between the countries and with the United States.
Conflict Resolution Perspective Analysis:
Conflict resolution theorists, in contrast with the conflict management, reject the power
political view of conflict, arguing that in communal and identity conflicts, people cannot
compromise on their fundamental needs. So conflicting party are not possible to give up on
what they originally want to achieve. However, they argue that it is possible to surpass
conflicts if parties can be helped to explore, analyze, question and reframe their positions and
interests.
Conflict resolution emphasizes intervention by skilled but powerless third-parties
working unofficially with the parties to foster new thinking and new relationships. In the
process of Camp David Treaty, both Egypt and Israel are mediated by skilled third party, but
not powerless. President Charter, come as individual to become the facilitator who “travels”
from one chamber to another during the Camp David treaty after the 3rd day of negotiation,
since the heated discussions reached an deadlock, and direct dialogue between Sādāt and
Begin became impossible.
Conflict Resolution theorist argued that by the third party together with the dispute
parties seek to explore what the roots of the Conflict really are and to identify creative
solutions that the parties may have missed in their Commitment to entrenched positions. In
Camp David it happens in the dialogue between both of the country leaders, and creative
solution are facilitated by president Charter‟s efforts to compile a resolution which could be
agreed by both of the country.
Conflict resolution is about how parties can move from zero-sum, destructive patterns
of conflict to positive-sum constructive outcomes. As according to Azar and Burton: The aim
of conflict resolution is to develop “processes of conflict resolution that appear to be
acceptable to parties in dispute, and effective in resolving conflict“(Azar and Burton
1986,1).5 And Camp David Accord has been proven to be the best solution that resolves the
disputes between Egypt and Israel, and until now, both of them still respecting the peace
treaty signed in 1979 which is the result of the Campt David Accords.
Conflict Transformation Perspective Analysis:
Different with the two previous conflict theories, conflict transformation theorists argue
that contemporary conflicts require more than the reframing of positions and the
identification of win-win outcomes such as in the conflict resolution theories. The very
structure of parties and relationships may be rooted in a pattern of conflictual relationships
that extend beyond the particular site of conflict. Conflict transformation theory sees conflict
as a long term process to achieve a bigger result than just a resolution of a war. War or
conflict are inevitable therefore it is determined on how our perspective could see the conflict
as a process and transform it into a constructive progress and outcome.
Conflict transformation is therefore a process of engaging with and transforming the
relationships, interests, and, if need, the constitution of society that supports the continuation
of violent conflict using a progressive and prospect of long term goals, because constructive
conflict is seen as a vital agent or catalyst for change and in the context of Camp David
accords, it is the matter of how we see the previous disputes of wars and conflict between
Egypt and Israel as the ingredient in order to create a relations they have today. The previous
wars has brought both Egypt and Israel into the “stalemate” condition whom will create the
action of President Sadat and later resulted in the Accords.
5
Ibid
According to transformation theory, people within the conflict parties, within the
society or region affected, and outsiders with relevant human and material resources all have
complementary roles to play in the long-term process of peace building. Transformation
theory suggests a comprehensive and wide-ranging approach, emphasizing support for groups
within the society in conflict rather than for the mediation of outsiders. Then the
transformation theory suggest that solution of conflict shouldn‟t depended on the outsider
group, but rather more enforcing to the elements inside the conflicting parties to actively
together making efforts to reach peace. It is in accordance with the words of John Paul
Lederach: “Conflict transformation must actively envision, include, respect, and promote the
human and cultural resources from within a given setting. This involves a new set of lenses
through which we do not primarily ‚see„ the setting and the people in it as the ‚problem„ and
the outsider as the ‚answer„. Rather, we understand the long-term goal of transformation as
validating and building on people and resources within the setting (Lederach 1995).”6
In Camp David Accords, Conflict transformation expects that the elements inside both
of the countries such as the people, the political parties, or other aspects to participate and
have a role in the peace keeping process of Egypt and Israel. But the reality shows that this
peace efforts mainly focused on the high profile actors which is the President and the Prime
Minister, while the people or some elements inside each countries still dishearten this effort
and it‟s proven by the assassination of president Anwar Sadat on 19817.
Even though conflict transformation variables cannot explain about the single process
of Camp David Accords, the principle or the perspective of the theory could explain how we
see the conflicts and wars as the process to achieve a better result for both parties in their
relation for a long term, and not limited only after the peace has been reached for both of the
county.
6
John Paul Lederach, Conflict Transformation, posted October 2003, retrieved from
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/transformation
7
On 6 October 1981 President Anwar Sadat was assassinated by members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad during
the annual victory parade held in Cairo to celebrate Egypt's crossing of the Suez Canal
Conclusion
From the analysis we have try to analyze from the process of the Camp David
Accords and try to “see” and elaborating them with three conflict theories, we could see that
some conflict theories could be applied with the process of the negotiation which is the
Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution theory because both of the theory aspects are
existed in the real process of the resolution whether as the background of the theory nor in the
process of negotiation at the Camp David. While the last theory, the Conflict Transformation
theory could not explain about the accords based on the variables inside the concept itself,
and could be considered fail to be elaborated with the case of Camp David Accords.
As a Conclusion, as we have compared and see how the three conflict theory analyze
the Camp David Accords, the writer suggest that the conflict Management are the better
theory to explain the process of Camp David Accord as a peace keeping action towards the
relation of Egypt and Israel. And from the process how the Camp David Accord could be
created we could see how the correlation of a conflict between states and its resolution cannot
be separated from its development process.
Reference
 The Middle East Institute Viewpoints: The Legacy of Camp David – www.mei.edu
 Camp David and Peacemaking in the Middle East - William B. Quandt
 Arab-Israeli Peace agreements \ Camp David E0– Eli E.Hertz
 Jimmy Charter, Framework for Peace in the Middle East
HTTP://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/91061/Camp-David-Accords/284489/Aframework-for-peace
 Nicolas Pons-Vignon and Henri-Bernard Solignac Lecomte, OECD DEVELOPMENT
CENTRE, Working Paper No. 233 Land, Violent Conflict and
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords
 HTTP://www.history.com/this-day-in-history
 http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/23/world/meast/camp-david-accords-fast-facts/
