Why Peace Processes Fail to End Violence - Research Paper Example

Reasons as To Why Peace Processes Fail to end Violence Executive summery This manuscript provides an elaborative analysis of the efficiency of peace as a means of resolving problems and the failure of it to work in its application. It looks into the process of negotiation and the contribution by each role player in the process of peace establishment. Through it, one will understand the aspect behind the failure of the peaceful processes. Policymaking and the relevance of these policies are also looked into significantly. The reason behind the failure to implement these policies is also broadly covered. The failure of talks among governments, societies, rebels, communities and other parties faced with conflict to come to consensus is also discussed. Various examples of such instances have been given, and the challenges they face in the negotiation process outlined. Attempts and failure of dialogue in solving a conflict eliciting new beginning of the conflict has also been illustrated in this document. Factors hindering peace methods in curbing the conflicts have also been widely discussed. In various cases, both international and domestic, mediation has always failed; this is discussed with various relevant examples in the world. Most warring parties embark on physical confrontation as a means of solving the problem. Political and fiscal reforms will be noted to assist in the decision-making during the negotiation process. This often results to the elimination of peace as a solution to the problem that resulted to war. This idea has been viewed from different angles in this document such that it is realized that peace often fails in the process of ending violence. Introduction The definition of peace maybe varied, but, in this context, it can be summarized or explicated as the absence of hostilities or war. It can be attained by various applications depending on the context. Establishment of peace through peace method has proved inefficient in most cases thus termed to have failed in ending violence. This method is mostly applied through negotiations and settling of disputes through peace building and peacekeeping. Political factors, in most cases, are the culprit of war thus making peace a difficult avenue to take in bringing things under control. The willingness of the warring parties to have a round table talk is a problem. Market and culture of violence has also proved to fuel the war. These, in most cases, come in by availing war equipments, which keeps on in supply thus prompting their use. As a result, peace does not surface out as the best way of solving the problem. Attempts to use this method, therefore, are competed out by this factor. The timeframe of the conflict and the period of interventions play a part in the failure of this method when not keenly done. Change in political leadership is a major hindrance in the peace negotiation processes. New ultimatum by either of the parties under crisis always marks the beginning of the failure of this method of conflict resolution. Formation of rebel grouping among the negotiating sides always poses sudden death to the negotiation process. Mistrust of the warring sides is also a factor that hampers the application of peace in the establishment of tranquility. The initial context of the crisis may be in a manner that peace does not help in solving the crisis. The influence from external forces, globally or locally, may hamper the peace development processes. In this manner, therefore, conflict resolution through the peaceful way of approach faces numerous challenges and thus in most cases doomed to failure. Various illustrations in this have been discussed in the subsequent sections. Reasons why peace agreement is difficult to attain Change in political leadership In most cases, conflict results from political disagreement. This may be in the form of disputed election results or rebel prompting a coup de tar. In such cases, those who lead the parties who are pulling apart may change their positions because of internal factors within the various parties or death of a particular leader in either of the parties. These results to change in perception, in most cases, and general change in interest and methodology applied in the process of solving the problem. This often results into renewed conflicts. Any initial attempts to apply peace as a method of solving the problem often fail. An example can be illustrated by the failure of the peace method in Aceh peace process, when a new president came in, and the process of negotiation had to be opened in 1999 (Edward & Harold 2003). War that is often used in solving internal problems War maybe applied as a diverse tactic of solving the problem by garnering support, galvanizing a people, and obscuring leadership to deal with other social problems. In so doing, the aggrieved party will not sit back for negotiation hence war. This completely hampers any efforts to bring peace among the warring sides. Renewal of conflict after agreement Most parties under tension may be experiencing a scenario whereby one party is powerful and does not want to share power or restore peace. The other side will be trying to make use of every agreement so that it may consolidate power. Manipulation of the governing power may fuel the conflict father and each party, therefore, brings allies to enable continuity of the conflict. Pitfalls in peace achievement Each side’s ill motives may hamper peace sustainability since the warring sides may not be ready to forgo some condition due to selfish gain. In so doing, taking defense hampers a broad view of the opposite side’s situation and perspective. This is majorly because of the failure to attempt to view the situation from the other side and relating it to the course of the conflict. It is rather obvious that the opposing side always demands more than maybe reasonable; this makes it difficult for peace to be attained. Taking low position may always be viewed as a weakness; thus, none of the parties would like to bend low to the others demand or intermediate point. This also hampers the process and thus a setback in attempts to apply the method. This is added by the belief that protection should be done for something that is fair, right and just no matter what. This comes in most religion related conflicts. No party would willingly give more than they receive. Greed and ego, in this case, work hand in hand in derailing the peace processes, in conflict resolution. Modernization as a factor for increased violence Any social and economic modernization increases conflict potentials. Inequitable distribution of the benefits of economic development also aids in this potential conflict. Thus, the structure and composition of already existing social and political institutions are not in a position to reconcile the interests of both the new and old parties. Polarization results in this situation between the marginalized party and the other that holds privileges. In this case, the two parties may not appreciate dialogue as the best means of solving the issue since this set up is intentional. An attempt to apply peace method is always destined to failure since most developmental premises are already set. Poverty issues make it difficult to solve problems through peace method. The richer side will always down play the poor side. This will cause aggrieved anger to the poverty-stricken side who will apply all crude means to continue with the war. The other side, on the other hand, will be attempting to take credit from the unfortunate situation to, completely, silence the other party. Undermining the capability of a poverty-stricken group, therefore, ensures that no dialogue is carried out between the two sides under conflict. Lack of appropriate dialogue facilitating team There may be mediators who may not be skilled to deal with the case at hand or biased in the strategy and judgments, in the process of restoring peace. This would lead to automatic failure of the peace restoration process. Taking a case, where one side is given conditions that are so extreme to consider in the agreement, then it would mean that that party will withdraw from the talks. The attempts by the mediator to recall the parties back to the mediatory talks may fail. Inconsistency of the team may make the team to lose grip on the peace restoration exercise. The mediating team may comprise of individuals who lack tact in handling the conflict situation in a peaceful manner in this process; therefore, they tend to deviate from the main stream of restoring peace into fresh conflict. This is mostly realized from people who have high tempers and lack skills in controlling the tempers. The mediation process must always have annoying facts that must be dealt with professionally rather than “head on” In most cases, this leads to complete failure of the process. This demonstrates clearly that restoration of peace through peace is not possible. International influences Most conflicts are always involving groups within a country or two or more countries. In this, the regional dimensions do play an important role in peace restoration or otherwise fuel the conflict incognito or even “above the waters.” These international contributors may have a personal interest to the war. For instance, the warring parties have a commodity of high value and the commodity becomes available cheaply during the war from one of the warring parties. A clear illustration of this is in the oil producing countries where the war is endless due to such like factors. The surrounding political entities may count on the war as a benefit to them in their economic agenda. Their quest for future ally is another factor that may prompt them to fuel the conflict from one side. There also maybe the quest to shift around the balance of power regionally. This can be possible by ensuring the region under conflict is drained in the conflict thus making it a stepping-stone to superiority. It can also be in a manner that the supported side also pays back the support later when there will be need especially when regional superiority will be claimed. The physical location of leadership The physical location of leadership maybe one that is easily susceptible to attacks. Thus, the violators will always use this to start a conflict. Peace in this case does not appear as a method of solving the problem instead the leadership location is what must change. Taking an illustration from the GAM’s leadership in Indonesia during the conflict in 1990s, the attackers easily got back to provoke GAM despite the ongoing talks with the new president. As a result, therefore, false start could trigger fresh wars in the region rendering the talks useless. Most of the leaders including Hassan Di Tiro were living in exile while the fighters were in the field in Aceh. This hampered the mediation process. Conversations regarding peace work effectively on a one on one basis. In a case where the parties that are to be reconciled do not sit together, to share views and ideas, peace may fail to restore peace. This is more so due to the impunity of the leaders who are far away from each other and are not willing to come close. Cease-fire, therefore, is not a possibility as both the two sides work hard to silence the other. Foundation of the peace The base on which the peace is built may lead to its failure to the ending of a conflict. During conflict resolution, the base is in most cases overlooked. The two parties may not view it as a balanced take away situation but may focus on its weaknesses to rekindle the fire. In this case, the weak basement of the situation under which the peace is restored by mediation becomes the source of failure (John, Margret et al 2000). The other party, on the other hand, may not realize the take of their partners based on laying points driven towards the cease-fire. In this situation, fresh attacks are always witnessed. If the peace, therefore, is generally focused on weak points then the results maybe as unexpected. This is always a common case and has always been a major failure in most mediation processes. In inertia, meaning in the application of this method, there is no sole point that can be based on as a neutral point of commencing the discussion. Therefore, balancing of the points is the way to go in checking on the ground of beginning mediation. This, however, in most cases, has proved a nightmare! False accusations Any of the two sides, for some known or strange reason, may allege that the other side is projecting offensives over them. This might form a beginning of the refreshing of the conflict. Management of such situation through peace has always proved to be a problem since the side that airs the allegations may be wrong or right. Either way, it will be a clear indication of withdrawal or discontent with the negotiation process. The reflection here is that there may be a feeling that the other party is being favored or it may be a way of escaping the negotiation process. In this scenario, the mediation will be at a rock if not well checked since it is an indicator of war progress ignition. The side that is being blamed, on the other hand, may want to prove the point by performing real attack to confirm the blame. If this is the case, then the peace negotiation is hampered a great deal and thus can be termed as a failed process. This is not a strange case in most conflict resolution processes that use peace as a means of attaining peace. Thus, alternative methods can be applied as maybe appropriate (john 2003). Reduced apparent desire by the military to terminate peace Gerald (1999) explains that the military is always the yardstick in every war situation. In some cases as peace negotiations are in progress or are being programmed, the military may clearly indicate their unhappiness with the process and are not in support for it. In such a case, the negotiation problem may only have a verbal effect but not any actual practice of the fields agreed upon. The fear of the military discontent may hamper the whole process; this may end up in contributing to the failure of the process. The leaders, who may in this case be political leaders can decide to sit and solve the conflict, but the military being against this for one reason or another may pose a threat of overturning leadership, which is even more “hazardous” to the process. This has always happened in cases where one of the leaders tends to withdraw yet the followers are not convinced of the step. These reactions may automatically end the peace negotiation process. Military as the tool for steering war, therefore, is a factor that must be kept under check at each time of the negotiation process, but, in most cases, it has proved otherwise. Mistrust between the two sides If the conflict could not be stopped at the beginning, then it is a clear indication that both or either sides could not trust each other. This is not restricted to the beginning but also during the negotiation time. It is in most cases evident that one side will always spoil the trust of the other side. If this happens, then the conflict is far from over through peaceful negotiations. The negotiations, therefore, go to deadlock prompting the two sides to resume the war; this makes it clear that the peace process applied in such a case will fail. Most nations that are facing such conditions do always find pieces of source of mistrust through minor or petty issues. This in most of the time arises through one side taking a suggestive action that indicates negative response to the other side’s plight. In this manner, the aggrieved side does not ignore the course but takes moves towards ensuring that the trust is already broken. As such, they get back to fresh attack, which is so rapid. The mediating teams, therefore, face rough time ensuring that trust is built between the two sides. As a result, the mediation team often withdraws hence failure of the reconciliation. Inconsistent strategy of participation The three players in a conflict situation usually are the mediator and the two or more warring sides. In the process of restoring peace, there may be varied response to the calls made by the mediator, this maybe because of either side being reluctant to respond as required by the mediators in the mediation process. The mediators on the other side may also fail to take their roles in the manner that is inconsistent thus, the effectiveness of the process is dissolved by renewed war. This failure is usually attributed to by the inconsistency of role taking. Fragmentation of either side This is always a serious case in the process of mediation. Either of the sides may partially feel dissatisfied by the mediation process and outcomes. As a result, therefore, a split is realized in the reasoning. This ends up completely splitting the side in question hence fresh war. This particular case was realized in Sudan, Africa, where the southern Sudan forces split into several rebel groups that started fresh wars in the process of mediation. It is difficult to bring the rebels together to champion for peace yet their reasoning and interest are varied and are the basis for the split. The problem here is selfish interest of the particular freshly formed groups. Most of such like cases are evident where the cause of disagreement is wealth. If there is a rich source of wealth that is in question and fuels the wrangles, then any attempt to bring the two sides to hold talks fails because of the splitting of the various sides. Everyone here always has a feeling that they should have a share or right to ownership of the section. In this manner, when the negotiation eliminates sectioned ownership then it boils down to fresh violence in the region because of splitting of either sides. Power sharing problems During most of the violence, attempts to bring peace are made. In most political situations where power is the issue of concern then attempts are made to ensure that the two sides have a power sharing accord. This faces many challenges due to the conditions set by both the two sides. The individual sides and supporters put pressure on the opposite side as the opposite side also puts pressure thus formation of a collision team becomes a problem. The demands of the two sides, however, may not be met by the either party hence violence goes on. In case the coalition is successfully made, it does not infer that the process is successful, but the process is just yet to face new challenges. In the collision, there are numerous challenges that if not keenly and tactfully identified and dealt with then there become a new war between the two sides. This is often difficult to end following the fact that the warring sides already lost trust on each other and already proved that the peaceful process does not work out for them. In this case, the process becomes an automatic failure at the end of it all. Retaliation In many cases, the mediation process maybe ongoing as the violence is on, that, therefore, poses a big challenge to the mediation process in that the mediators may call for a cease-fire. An attempt by one side to withdraw from the attacks makes a weak point for the other side to cling on to launch their attacks. In this process, the other side responds to the attacks in a manner that it becomes difficult for the other side to put down their war tools. This is a non-doubtable indicator of a war that cannot easily be controlled by peace method (Atul 1990). Conclusion From the above explanations, it is difficult to bring an end to war using the peace method. The mediators always conduct peace method, and its success relies on the mediator factors and the warring sides. The willingness of both sides top bring peace determines the ease or difficulty of success to the mediation process. This, however, is faced by challenges such as mistrust among the sides. Other factors that make it difficult to end violence using this process are external forces. This may be due to various interests that they may derive from the war. The warring sides May also be faced by challenges in the attempt to restore peace through negotiation. These may include splitting of the followers thus leading to renewed war between the two sides. These among other factors that have been looked into in the previous section clearly indicate the failure of the peace process to the ending of violations. References Edward, A & Harold, C 2003, The Aceh Peace Process: Why It Failed, east-west center, Washington. John, D B 2003, C. Wright and the end of violence, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Gerald, R F 1999, Gerald R ford: Public Papers of The Presidents of the United State, government printing, Washington. Atul, K 1990, democracy and discontent: India's Growing Crisis of Governability, Cambridge university press, New York. John R E, Alcira K, Margaret A et al 2000, El Salvador: Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Country Case Evaluation, Bank Publications, Washington D.C. Read More