Negotiating Intractable Conflicts

Readiness Theory Revisited

Amira Schiff

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429582738
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politique et relations internationales
• Subtopic: Paix et développement mondial

Through the lens of readiness theory, this book focuses on elements that determine the success and failure in negotiating peace agreements in intractable ethno-national conflicts.

Examining three cases of mediated negotiation in Aceh, Sudan, and Sri Lanka, the book provides an analytical framework for studying the processes underlying the movement toward conflict resolution. By studying readiness theory's capacity to identify the factors that influence parties' readiness to reach an agreement, it constitutes another step in the development of readiness theory beyond the pre-negotiation stage. The work highlights the central role that third parties – mediators and the international community – play in the success or failure of peace processes, illuminating the mechanisms through which third parties affect the dynamics and outcome of the process. The systematic examination of readiness theory in these cases is instructive for researchers as well as for practitioners who seek to successfully mediate intractable conflicts and help adversaries achieve peace accords.

This book will be of much interest to students of conflict resolution, peace studies, Asian politics, African politics and international relations in general.

1 Theoretical overview and research design

Resolving intractable conflicts in peace agreements, or even bringing the parties to agree to sit at the table in these persisting conflicts, can be an exhausting and complicated task for third parties or for parties interested in exploring this option. The multiple factors contributing to the persistence of these conflicts often create a context that is not conducive for the exploration of a bilateral track or peaceful resolution of the conflict. Despite recurring peace initiatives aimed to resolve these conflicts, the parties may not see the advantage of reaching an agreement over the prevailing status quo. Still, this task is not completely impossible. Though intractable conflicts tend to resist resolution, the empirical evidence suggests that they can be managed, and under certain conditions peace agreements can be reached between the parties (Crocker, Hampson, & Aall, 2004, 2018).¹

This chapter lays out the concepts and theoretical framework used in the study to understand the conditions and processes that underlie the movement toward the settlement of intractable conflicts and that affect negotiation outcome. Key concepts from the intractable conflict literature in the conflict resolution field are presented. Next, the chapter introduces the two main theoretical strands in the field that describe the conditions necessary for convincing longtime rivals to change their approach and consider negotiation as an option, agree to negotiate, and even sign an agreement: ripeness theory and readiness theory. The argument made here is that readiness theory as a conceptual framework enables us to identify more causes of these dynamics in more cases of pre-negotiation processes. It underlines more variables than the two necessary conditions outlined by ripeness theory and considers the gradual changes in these variables in the process that brings the parties to the table. The contention is that these unique features of readiness theory make it more helpful than ripeness theory in studying the de-escalation processes in a wider range of historical cases, including mediated processes. It allows researchers to isolate more causes in dynamic processes that are not necessarily linear and often have multiple sources. Thus, it enables researchers to screen multiple effects and capture the processes that lead to success or failure in negotiations. This flexibility makes it more heuristic, allowing the researcher to scientifically test hypotheses about the significance of various factors in the processes that lead the parties to change their stance toward the negotiation option. Furthermore, it allows researchers to further explore whether the theory can help to explain concession-making and success in reaching an agreement through negotiations (Pruitt, 2005, 2007, pp. 12–13, 1525).

The third part of this chapter discusses structured focused comparison, the research method utilized for understanding the factors that affect the success or contribute to the failure of negotiations in the three cases explored. This is followed by a discussion of the book’s research design.

Intractable conflicts

Intractable conflicts are conflicts that defy settlement. Each intractable conflict is different, is rooted in its own specific circumstances, and involves its own issues and actors. However, the leaders in these conflicts share a common characteristic: They “believe their objectives are fundamentally irreconcilable and they have a greater interest in maintaining the … status quo than considering potential political alternatives” (Crocker et al., 2018, p. 40). Still, in some intractable conflicts, at some point in the conflict’s life cycle, leaders do change their political stance toward the option of exploring bilateral solutions and may even sign a peace agreement. Examples include the Chapultepec Peace Agreement that brought an end to civil war in El Salvador between the military-led government and the guerilla coalition Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front in 1992; the peace agreement between Indonesia and Portugal in 1999 that granted independence to East Timor; the agreement signed in 1998 that settled the territorial conflict between Peru and Ecuador; the agreement signed in 1996 between the government of Guatemala and Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity guerillas; and the agreement signed in 2001 between Papua New Guinea’s government and the people of Bougainville Island. In order to understand the changes that form the necessary conditions for the de-escalation processes in these conflicts we need first to comprehend the nature of the conflicts.

Intractable conflicts are often costly in both social and economic terms, affecting many aspects of the community’s social and political life (Coleman, 2006). These conflicts vary on “a continuum of intractability” (Kriesberg, 2005, p. 66), and the variance can be explained by several essential and interrelated characteristics. These characteristics reflect the evolving dimension of intractable conflicts and the emergence of new sources of conflict in the relations of the adversaries. The intensity of these characteristics varies from one conflict to another, and this helps to explain why some conflicts are more intractable than others (Crocker et al., 2005; Kriesberg, 1998, 2005; Mitchell, 2014; Zartman, 2005). Four main features mark intractability:

• 1 Persistence: The conflicts persist over time. Scholars concur that the duration of intractable conflict varies and is defined subjectively, based on the perspective of when the conflict began (Zartman, 2005; Kriesberg, 2005). Kriesberg asserts that for analytical purposes it is useful to define the duration as “beyond one social generation.” This indicates that the parties to the conflict underwent socialization processes that “internalized reasons to continue their fight with each other” (Kriesberg, 2005, p. 67); it also means that they carry psychological wounds and have a deep sense of grievance and victimization and have accumulated animosity and hostility (Bar-Tal, 2013), which adds to the firm wall of intractability and places serious barriers to de-escalation in these conflicts (Crocker et al., 2004).
• 2 Zero-sum perceptions: The parties in the conflict harbor zero-sum perceptions regarding the issues in contention and the incompatibility of their goals. Each side in intractable conflicts believes that the objectives of the two sides are fundamentally irreconcilable (Kriesberg, 2005; Coleman, 2006; Bar-Tal, 2013).
• 3 Incommensurable issues: The conflict’s location on the continuum of intractability depends on the issues in contention. As a phenomenon, the intractable conflict involves a mix of incompatible goals of two kinds. The first is the goal of both parties to obtain goods they perceive as scarce (Mitchell, 2014, pp. 29, 61). The second involves issues of incommensurability: the parties seek completely different things for the same territory or society that “preclude others from gaining what they want” (Mitchell, 2014, p. 61), cannot be distributed or shared, and “do not allow for alternative outcomes to those dictated by the beliefs of the party holding them” (Mitchell, 2014, p. 61). Incommensurable goals include ideologies, value systems, and identity issues of the groups involved. Conflicts involving such intangible issues are “more difficult to deal with peacefully” (Mitchell, 2014, p. 50) because the goals of the opposing parties appear to be incommensurable (Bar-Tal, 2007).
  Ethno-national conflicts tend to become intractable since they involve the intangible issue of denying an identity group’s right to national self-determination (Bercovitch & Jackson, 2009). In these conflicts, the recognition of one party’s national identity is perceived to be at the expense of the other, denying the other group’s right to its own national identity. In such conflicts, which take place within the borders of one country, identity groups divided by ethnicity apply various destructive strategies. This results in rapid escalation as ethnic groups demand national identity recognition from each other. The conflicts in Sri Lanka, the Balkans, the Philippines, and Cyprus, as well as the Israeli-Palestinian and Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts, are examples of intractable ethno-national conflicts. At the extreme end of the continuum of intractability, we find conflicts characterized as “existential.” These involve the threat to the continued existence of the adversary, often the weaker one. Here, zero-sum perceptions of a group’s identity needs involve denying the other group’s right to exist – that is, the annihilation of the other party. In these cases, the loser ceases to exist (Mitchell, 2014).
• 4 Destructiveness: The conflicts are conducted using destructive means, including the use of violence or other harmful behavior, or under the threat of destructive behavior. In these conflicts, the parties gradually come to view destructive processes, hostility, and violence as normative behavior (Coleman, 2006). During the life cycle of these conflicts, there are ups and downs in the level of destructiveness, depending on the different stages of the conflict (Kriesberg, 2005; Zartman, 2005). Furthermore, the level of violence across intractable conflicts is not always the same. Some are characterized by ongoing war between the parties, such as in the civil wars in El Salvador (1980–92), Colombia (1964–2016), Sri Lanka (1986–2009), and Sudan (1955–72, 1983–2005), while others are characterized by low levels of violence or intermittent violence, such as in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the conflict in the Mindanao region in the Philippines, and the insurgency in Indonesia’s Papua region. In other conflicts, there may be decades without violence, even though the conflict remains unresolved – for example, the conflict between the Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) and between China and Taiwan. Destructive patterns characterize intractable conflicts in either case, whether a state of war persists or whether the parties have become accustomed to living in a relatively stable status quo situation.

A number of factors contribute to the intractability of conflicts, inflaming and complicating them. Some of these factors are interrelated and have self-reinforcing features that sustain the struggle (Mitchell, 2014; Zartman, 2005). Thus, the conflict becomes self-perpetuating, making it difficult to transform (Kriesberg, 2010, p. 487). Researchers have identified several key factors that promote the intractability of conflicts; these factors can be divided into two broad categories of internal and external characteristics (Mitchell, 2014; Kriesberg, 1998, 2005; Zartman, 2005; Crocker et al., 2005). Internal characteristics include the issues in contention, the relations between the adversaries and how the parties perceive them, and the internal political features of each party. The zero-sum perceptions of groups pursuing goals involving issues of ethnicity and communal identity reinforce the intractability of the conflict (Zartman, 2005; Kriesberg, 1998; Crocker et al., 2005; Mitchell, 2014). Similarly, the refusal to recognize the other party’s legitimacy as a collective is likely to exacerbate the intractability of a conflict. The way each party treats the other can have a significant impact – for example, the denial of basic human needs, systematic discrimination by those in power (Crocker et al., 2018), inhumane treatment, and the indiscriminate use of violence encourage the other party to continue the conflict and even to seek revenge (Kriesberg, 1998, 2005; Zartman, 2005).

The intense and evolving socio-psychological infrastructure of the societies involved in intractable conflicts is a prominent internal feature that poses barriers for resolving conflicts and contributes to their intractability (Bar-Tal, 2013). The socio-psychological infrastructure includes three elements relevant to the societies involved in the conflict: the collective memories, the ethos of conflict, and the collective emotional orientation. The socio-psychological infrastructure of the societies involved “becomes a prism through which society members construe their reality, collect new information, interpret their experiences, and then make decisions about their course of action” (Bar-Tal, 2007, p. 1446). Thus, it maintains and prolongs the conflict.

Another important internal characteristic that helps to explain the perpetuation of a conflict is the relative power imbalance between the parties to the conflict, whether they are communities or states (Kriesberg, 1998). The balance of power and vulnerability can be perceived and interpreted differently by each side.

The absence of ripeness is yet another internal characteristic. In these conflicts, there is no mutually hurting stalemate of a no-win situation or unbearable costs to motivate the parties to jointly search for solutions. Instead, there is a soft and generally bearable stalemate, perceived by the parties as preferable to any other proposed solution; consequently, there is no pressure to look for alternatives to the conflict (Zartman, 2005; Crocker et al., 2018).

Leadership is another prominent internal characteristic contributing to a conflict’s intractability. Leaders whose political careers and personal wealth depend on the conflict will be interested in sustaining it rather than negotiating an agreement (Crocker et al., 2004, 2018). Furthermore, internal developments within the opposing camps can be another source of intractability. The adoption of an ethno-nationalist ideology in ethnic conflicts and the process of entrapment – in which individuals in the group increase their commitment to continue the struggle “in order to justify their previous investments or sacrifices” (Kriesberg, 1998, p. 336) – will further reduce the chance of resolving the conflict. The level of integration and coercion within a party can also contribute to intractability, affecting the party’s ability to negotiate and successfully implement an agreement (Mitchell, 2014, p. 53). In democracies whose societies are divided internally, domestic politics and political considerations prevent leaders from making concessions and taking risks (Crocker et al., 2004, 2005). The activity of spoilers who openly or surreptitiously oppose negotiation and compromise is another major impediment to reaching an agreement (Crocker et al., 2004).

The second category of factors that promote intractability is structural and external to the conflict; it involves the role of external actors and the geopolitical context (Zartman, 2005). Conflicts are rarely socially isolated and other parties besides the adversaries are always involved, whether as “supporters, suppliers, critics … or enforcers of limits” (Mitchell, 2014, p. 56). This involvement often contributes to a conflict’s intractability. External patrons and supporters of the parties each bring their own interests to a conflict that is not their own. The relationships between these external actors and the antagonists complicate the conflict and the attempts to manage and resolve it (Zartman, 2005, p. 56). The “bad neighborhood effect” is noted as a major contributing factor to a conflict’s intractability (Crocker et al., 2018, p. 42). This describes a situation in which a conflict remains intractable as long as a larger war around it is still being waged – for example, the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo has intermittently kept Rwanda, Angola, Burundi, Sudan, Uganda, and Zimbabwe embroiled in conflict since the 1990s. States that lie on the borderline between larger civilizations also suffer from the “bad neighborhood effect,” as in the case of Kashmir, which straddles the Islamic and Hindu civilizations (Crocker et al., 2018, p. 42). Furthermore, the fact that each conflict is embedded in a larger social system and interlocked with other conflicts makes it more difficult to resolve any of the conflicts, as one conflict becomes superimposed on other conflicts (Kriesberg, 1998; Mitchell, 2014).

Though each intractable conflict is different and has its unique context, content, and characteristics, the literature suggests basic distinctions between intractable conflicts based on the political status of the adversaries and the violence applied in these conflicts (Crocker et al., 2005, 2018). One distinction is between interstate versus intrastate intractable conflicts. The conflicts between India and Pakistan, between North Korea and South Korea, between North Korea and the United States, and between Israel and Syria are examples of intractable conflicts between states. The conflict in Cyprus between the Republic of Cyprus (Greek Cypriots) and the TRNC (Turkish Cypriots), the conflict in Sri Lanka between the Tamils and the Sinhalese, the conflict in Sudan prior to 2005 between the government of Sudan and the SPLM in South Sudan, and the conflict in Aceh prior to the 2005 agreement between Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) all are examples of intrastate intractable conflicts. It should be noted that the distinction based on the political status of the parties is not always clear or precise, particularly in conflicts that center on the refusal of one of the parties to recognize the sovereignty of the other. For example, some may argue that the conflict between China and Taiwan is an interstate conflict, while others may argue that it should be considered an intrastate conflict because China claims sovereignty over Taiwan. Moreover, external actors are involved in one way or another in many intrastate conflicts and civil wars. These external actors often tend to manipulate the conflict to promote their own agendas and sometimes even take part in the fighting. In light of these international dimensions, such conflicts do not neatly fit the definition of intrastate conflict.

A second distinction is active (hot) versus abeyant (frozen) intractable conflicts (Crocker et al. 2005). This distinction addresses the variable of violence in the conflict. Active intractable conflicts have a violent component. The violence can also be sporadic, with lulls in the fighting. In these kinds of conflicts, the parties have yet to realize that the costs of agreement and ceasefire are lower than the political and military costs of continuing the fight (Crocker et al., 2005, 2018). Examples include the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the conflict in Sri Lanka prior to 2009, and the conflict in Kashmir between India and Pakistan. In contrast, abeyant intractable conflicts are characterized by a suspension of violence. This usually occurs when a third party is able and willing to guarantee ceasefire conditions that may serve as a prelude to a political accord (Crocker et al., 2005, 2018). One classic example is the conflict in Cyprus between the Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus peacekeeping forces have kept the adversaries at bay since 1974. The conflict in Moldova between the Republic of Moldova and the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Rep...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 Theoretical overview and research design
• 2 The Aceh peace process, 2005
• 3 The peace process in Sudan, 2002–2005
• 4 The Sri Lanka peace process, 2001–2004
• 5 Readiness for negotiation and agreement: lessons for theory and practice
• Appendices
• Index