Why Do Third Parties Coordinate in the Peace Processes:
Exploring the Coordination Dynamics of Multiparty
Intervention in Nepal and the Philippines
Prakash Bhattarai
PhD Candidate
National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies
University of Otago, New Zealand
Presentation 29 November 2012
520 Castle Street, Dunedin
Research Problem/Basis of the Study
—  Multiplicity of third parties (external, internal, official, unofficial, and so on)
—  Third party engagement with diverse roles (political, social, security, humanitarian)
—  Diverse motives/interests (genuine, strategic, and vested)
—  Multiple levels of engagements (high level, middle level, local level)
—  No concrete framework about how coordination should be done or should it likely be
—  Lack of clarity on who should coordinate with who and when
—  Multiplicity of mediators is perceived as a challenge, but not as an opportunity for enhancing the
effectiveness of the third party intervention
—  Lack of clarity in definition of multiparty mediation/intervention and coordination
Research Gap
—  Existing literature highlights coordinated third-party intervention as
one of the crucial aspects of conflict settlement and peace process,
but it does not clearly answer (with the facts and empirical
evidences) why and how it is an important aspect
—  Existing literature also lacks research-based explanation as to why
third party interveners do or do not coordinate in armed conflict
and peace processes and what the driving factors are that make third
parties to take complementary or coordinated action
—  Lack of comparative studies in this particular research
Research Questions
—  Under which conditions do third parties coordinate their
activities in the context of armed conflicts and the peace
processes?
—  Does third party coordination play a vital role in managing
armed conflicts and sustaining peace processes?
Research Type
—  Qualitative Research
—  Multi Case Study: Maoist Armed Conflict of Nepal and Moro
Conflict of the Philippines are taken as a Case Study
—  Analysis of the result: Evidence/examples and reflections of
relevant individuals collected through field-based interviews in
the country of case study
External Na6on states, donor agencies, Neighboring countries Regional organiza6ons UN, IFIs, INGOs I Local Civil society, NGOs, Business community Religious community Overall Dynamics of third-­‐party coordina6on Official (with mandates) Mul6plicity of third par6es Third-­‐Party Coordina6on Unofficial (without mandates Big Powers Small/Medium Powers Role of third-­‐party Coordina6on in bringing peace Condi6ons for third-­‐party coordina6on Factors that has Influenced Third-­‐Party Coordina6on Processes Indicators Yes TP Coordina6on Power and Posi6on of Strong government and strong rebel Govt. and Rebel group (relevant to the Philippines) Groups Dura6on of conflict Protracted conflict and protracted and nego6a6on nego6a6on (Relevant to Philippines) Less or No TP Coordina6on Weak government and weak rebel group (Relevant to Nepal) Intensity of the conflict When the situa6on is rela6vely normal (relevant to both countries)
Stages of conflict Characteris6cs of third par6es During the 6me of crisis and under the pressure of violence (relevant to both countries)
During conflict -­‐  Those who shares similar values (e.g Europeans)
Issues of interven6on -­‐ 
Issue of interna6onal interest (e.g. HR) -­‐  Poli6cal and security driven -­‐  Emergency response
Type of Interven6on Mandated interven6on (at ground level e.g. IMT)
Presence of local Strong local peace infrastructure
peace ins6tu6on Short-­‐term conflict and short-­‐term nego6a6on (Relevant to Nepal) Post-­‐agreement period -­‐  Mul6plicity of major global powers -­‐  Compe6ng goals and interests -­‐ 
-­‐ 
-­‐ 
Na6onal or local issues (MOA-­‐AD) Developmental interven6ons Post-­‐agreement issues Independent interven6on (at high-­‐level e.g. Role of India in Nepal) Weak local peace infrastructures