Executive Summary
[dropcap]T[/dropcap]his report focuses on the roles that third parties should play during a dialogue facilitation process. The high number of negotiations launched and peace agreements reached during 2012 confirms the trend observed during the last decades that the most common form of conflict termination is through negotiated settlements. However, according to the 2012 figures, about 40% of the negotiation process faced serious difficulties or did not achieve any results. Considering that the literature has shown a high correlation between the participation of third parties and peace talks’ success rates, one obvious explanation for the high percentage of peace negotiations that are unable to properly move forward could be the absence of third parties. Another factor could be linked to the performance of third parties when they do participate in dialogue processes. Some of the most frequent causes of crisis in negotiations are the warring parties’ lack of confidence in the facilitating third party. Therefore this report addresses the functions that third parties can perform in a peace process. It defines key concepts, summarises the most important features of peace negotiations in 2012 and addresses the roles of third parties in dialogues to end violence.Key concepts
Negotiation is defined as the process by which two or more opposing parties (either countries or actors within a particular country) decide to discuss their differences within an agreed framework to find a satisfactory solution to their demands. This can be a direct negotiation or with thirdparty facilitation. Normally, formal talks have a prenegotiation or exploration phase where the framework of a future negotiation is defined (format, location, conditions, guarantees, etc.).
A peace process is therefore the consolidation of a negotiation framework once the agenda, procedures, timetable and facilitation elements are defined. Hence, negotiation is just one of the stages in a peace process. Furthermore, a “peace process” is a “process aimed at bringing violence and armed struggle to an end”.
The signing of a peace agreement is only the beginning of the true “peace process”, which comprises the stage called “post-war rehabilitation”. During this phase decisions will be taken and policies designed that, if successful, will help overcome other existing types of violence (structural and cultural), and only then can we talk of “achieving peace”.
The model used in the process will depend on the type of claims and the ability of the actors to exert pressure or make demands (i.e. levels of military, political and social symmetry), although other aspects also have an influence, such as who accompanies or facilitates the negotiations, the fatigue levels of the various parties, the support they receive, and other less rational factors, such as the leaders’ personal obsessions, the social imaginary or historical inertias.
Not all of the processes or the exploration phases, dialogues and negotiations are truly sincere. Often they are part of the war strategy itself, either to buy time, to internationalise the conflict and get publicity, to rearm, or for other reasons.
The various stages of a peace process typically require an enormous investment of time. The proof of this is the significant number of years normally needed to launch such a process and achieve any results. Overall, and with very few exceptions, the process follows a pattern with more or less well-established phases, with the longest being the one dedicated to the negotiations. There is an initial exploratory phase, also called the prenegotiation stage, where those involved (explorers) gauge the parties’ commitment, i.e. they investigate whether the parties are really convinced that they are prepared to start a negotiation process where they will have to give something up.
This is a crucial stage, since often negotiations are conducted and one of the parties is not really committed to the process. In this case the negotiations are doomed to failure. The exploratory phase is where the terms are analysed to guarantee the complete and absolute safety of the negotiators who will attend the talks, since there may have been previous attempts to murder or attack them. Nobody would risk beginning talks without having full security guarantees in place with clearly defined rules.
In this phase other aspects are also established to guarantee compliance with the agreements reached. The schedules and methodology are laid down, a pre-agenda or initial agenda is defined, the terms of an initial roadmap are outlined, and the challenging issues of basic disagreement or fundamental incompatibilities (the metaconflict) are clarified. At this stage attempts are made to generate confidence in the process itself, decisions are made on the role of third parties, ideas are not imposed (since these form the basis of the negotiation itself), and the opponents are officially recognised to provide them with the legitimacy needed to become interlocutors. Once this exploratory work has been done an “agreement on what needs to be agreed” is reached and, as a result, progress is made on “how to do it”.
The sum of all these steps forms a “roadmap” or initial framework of what needs to be done so that everything goes well. The roadmap is an outline of the work to be done – a diagram giving the steps that guide the process.
After the negotiations begin the parties check to make sure that the interlocutors are valid, effectively represent the main stakeholders and have decision-making capacity. The negotiating table is no place for second-level actors. Thus, it is always necessary to start with an inclusive approach that gives a voice to the actors who are key to resolving the conflict, although they may not be very desirable. It makes no sense to invite actors just because they are friendly or easier to deal with. You need to seat the real adversaries at the table.
The substance of these negotiations is that opposing parties sit down to talk within a mutually beneficial framework that is based on the idea that “everybody wins, nobody loses”, i.e. “I win, you win”, avoiding zero-sum approaches where one wins and the other loses.
If satisfactory progress is made during the negotiation, substantive agenda items may be discussed (those in the procedural agenda will have been previously agreed on) and, since confidence will have grown, personal relationships may also change, which will make it easier to reach an agreement or, at least, partial agreements with their respective protocols. This in turn will make it possible to reach a final agreement that will specify how the accord will be implemented and who is responsible for doing so. This will eventually lead to agreements covering areas such as implementation, verification procedures and the resolution of any disagreements that may arise in the final stages.
The evolution of peace processes in 2012
Considering the number of negotiations launched and peace agreements reached, 2012 proved to be one of the most successful years for peace talks in recent times. Fifty-five negotiation contexts were identified; 14 groups from five countries handed over their weapons after reaching agreements with their respective governments; and exploratory talks that could bear fruit in 2013 began in Sudan, the Central African Republic (CAR), Colombia, India, Burma and Turkey. The high number of active negotiations confirms the growing trend in recent decades to resolve conflicts through dialogue processes that often end in peace agreements. Thus, of the 46 conflicts that have come to an end in the last 30 years, 82% have been terminated through peace agreements and 18% through military victory, which confirms negotiation as the best path for resolving conflicts.
Despite the many positive signs that were reported in 2012, about 40% of the negotiation processes faced serious difficulties or did not achieve any results. One of the factors that may help explain this high percentage of negotiations that are unable to successfully move forward is the fact that in many peace talks there is no third-party participation. When others were involved the negotiations usually functioned better. Thus, the involvement of third parties was important in the exploratory or rapprochement phase (e.g. Cuba and Norway in Colombia). Conversely, the (limited) mediation efforts by the UN were less important.
Another factor may be linked to the performance of third parties when they do participate in dialogue processes. Some of the most frequent causes of crisis in negotiations are related, for example, to the lack of confidence some of the conflicting parties have felt toward the third party who was facilitating the dialogue. In this regard, the following section identifies and analyses some of the functions that third parties can perform in a peace process.
The roles of third parties in peace processes
First we must acknowledge the work of Chris Mitchell (1992), who drew up the first proposal to systematize mediation roles, which in this report I will develop and adapt to peace processes.We should start by dispelling a popular misconception, which is the belief that mediation involves one person (former president Bill Clinton in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, former president Nelson Mandela in Burundi, former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan in Syria or former U.S. special envoy Christopher Ross in Western Sahara, for example).
Following Mitchell’s proposal, mediation is a process with multiple actors that play different but complementary roles. If functional mapping is more complete, the process will run better. The so-called mediator is, in fact, a central figure in the process who is known as the facilitator. The facilitator cannot act alone, but will need the help of people who also perform other tasks that are just as vital in a peace process.
Mediation is the intervention of third parties in a conflict where two or more players face initial problems of incompatibility. The third party attempts to help the actors in the conflict to find a satisfactory solution to the problem by themselves. The facilitator will not provide them with the solution, but will help them to find it by using suitable techniques and procedures. It should also be noted that mediation is not needed in all conflicts – the conflicting parties can meet and negotiate directly without the help of others. Nevertheless, in more than half of conflicts third parties are asked to provide assistance.
Mediation is a series of tasks performed by different people in the three basic stages of the peace process: the prenegotiation, negotiation and implementation of agreements. In each of these stages different people who are assigned specific roles may intervene. These are usually private individuals, but sometimes they are centres, organizations or agencies.
The Author
Vicenç Fisas Armengol is the director of the Escola de Cultura de Pau/School for a Culture of Peace at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and holds the UNESCO Chair on Peace and Human Rights. He is the author of 30 books on peace and disarmament and received the National Human Rights Award in 1988.
Disclaimer
The content of this publication is presented as is. The stated points of view are those of the author and do not reflect those of the organization for which he works or NOREF. NOREF does not give any warranties, either expressed or implied, concerning the content.
To be continued
