 | ||||
 |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  | |
|
| Peacemaking - Timing |
Escalation Studying the root causes and recent developments of violent conflict enables third parties to estimate if the combatants are ready to commit to a negotiation process, or if the parties would rather continue the conflict through violent means. For a conflict to be ripe for resolution, several factors should be present. Fear and fatigue, escalation of violence, power shifts, mutually hurting stalemates or mutually enticing opportunities, changes in perceptions of power balance, or reappraisals of end goals, can all lead towards a window of opportunity for resolution. Such ripe moments allow a transformation from violence to peaceful means of conflict management. Understanding the nature of escalation gives us insight into the dynamics of violent conflict. Identifying the nature of escalation and breaking this tendency can help to bring violence to an end. Escalation occurs as opposing parties raise the stakes of the conflict, and can be attributed to:
The term ripe for resolution is a conceptual term used to describe the phase when a conflict is more likely to be resolved through methods of conflict management. Coined by I. William Zartman, this term captures the idea that conflicts are an ongoing process, and that timing is of crucial importance. If parties have not yet reached a mutually hurting stalemate, then attempts at conflict management are almost certain to fail. Worse, becoming involved in conflict management when the conflict is not yet ripe can further exacerbate tensions and escalate the situation. It is only when parties are ready, due to any number or combination of security, political, social or economic developments, that peacemaking can be successful. Either by their own conviction or through the influence of others, leaders can perceive themselves to have reached a hurting stalemate, where violence takes too great a levy without bringing sufficient gain. If both parties consider the continuation or escalation of violence to be more costly than peaceful alternatives, a mutually hurting stalemate has been reached. This mutually hurting stalemate creates a window of opportunity-- a ripe moment-- for negotiations. Sometimes an event or opportunity occurs that can benefit both parties, thus encouraging them to come to the negotiation table. Because such an opportunity is unlikely to emerge spontaneously, it is the role of a third party mediator to create such an opportunity. Incentives or guarantees assured by the third party, or support that increases the perceived legitimacy of either or both sides, allows leaders who were previously entrenched in their positions to find a way out without losing the support of their relative constituencies. With the support and assistance of a mediator, negotiating parties can reach an understanding of the nature and causes of conflict. By redefining the terms of the conflict to address its root causes, parties can more easily define the terms of an acceptable solution. If the terms of trade created are considered equitable, and if parties are able to find a common sense of justice, the likelihood of sustaining the negotiated peace settlement increases. A commonly occurring dilemma in negotiation is known as the toughness dilemma. This dilemma is faced by negotiators, who choose a bargaining stance in the negotiation which is either "tough" or "soft." A tough stance means that a negotiator is likely to end up with agreeable terms; however, tough negotiating often precludes a settlement from being reached at all. If a negotiator takes a soft stance, an agreement is more likely to be reached, but at the cost of too much compromise. The different theoretical schools of peacemaking deal with the toughness dilemma in different ways. |