Peace talks are the lifeblood of conflict resolution efforts. They are often highly complex, require difficult compromises, and rarely result in immediate peace. However, the mere fact of peace talks often leads to increased optimism that a solution is at hand. It is important for practitioners of peacemaking to recognize this naive optimism and avoid staking their hopes on the premise that more talks will lead to a peaceful outcome.
Peacemakers must also understand the obstacles to war termination in today’s armed conflicts and the reasons why protagonists prefer fighting than talking. These include a lack of credible and enforceable guarantor states, the power imbalances that inevitably shape negotiations, and the myriad reasons why conflict actors feel compelled to fight instead of making peace.
Negotiations that take into account the perspectives of different groups can significantly increase their chances for success. For example, a study showed that Jewish-Israelis and Palestinians had different perceptions of what “peace” meant, with Israeli Jews viewing peace as harmonious relationships (positive peace) while Palestinians prioritized justice (structural peace). Providing incentives, such as training or adding delegate seats for women, can help to promote the participation of marginalized stakeholders in mediation processes.
Finally, it is important to consider the mediators themselves. Contrary to popular understanding, mediators don’t have to be neutral or unbiased. They can be a former politician or leader, as was the case with Blaise Compaore, the former president of Burkina Faso, who mediated the 2007 negotiations between the government of Côte d’Ivoire and the rebel Forces Nouvelles.
About the Author
