Introduction
Negotiation is a conflict transformation process that explores all parties’ goals through separate dialogs, distinguishes legitimate from illegitimate goals and finds creative solutions that achieve the goals of all parties. One of the most common ways that have been used for many years to bring peace when there war outbreak is negotiation (Cunningham and Sawyer, 2019, p. 619). This method has been considered a standard approach used globally when resolving conflicts between different nations since the end of the Cold War (Zartman, 2019). Various lessons can be learned from how a party that has been created brings a conflict to an end and prevents disagreements from occurring again in the future (Zartman, 2019). By examining various wars solved through negotiation, it is possible to understand how negotiation has been one of the most commonly used mechanisms of handling conflicts throughout history.
Precisely, theoretical and practical confrontations from various peace processes and their subsequent agreements are examined. The first case is the war agreement that ended in 1995 in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Wallensteen and Eriksson, 2021). It is also known as the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The second case is the DPA,’ The Dayton-Paris Agreement,’ ‘The Paris Protocol,’ and ‘The Dayton Accords signed in Paris December 1995 (Mahmud and Yusoff, 2020). These conflicts ended end after the two opposing sides carried out negotiations.
The third case is the North-South conflict agreement in Sudan. It is also known as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA or ‘The Naivasha Agreement’) (Kuol, 2020). The agreement was signed in January 2005, ending the war that begun in 1983 (Wallensteen and Eriksson, 2021). The final case is the peace treaty that ended the war that had begun in 1999 in Liberia. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed in Accra in August 2003.
Plan and Structure
This paper provides a report explaining the universal feature in these accords and peace treaties that follow afterwards. Therefore, these are reports based on different analyses of the outlined cases comprising a single joint project. Therefore, it combines various insights that have been created in these projects and discussions referred to as the Uppsala workshop (Wallensteen and Eriksson, 2021). They were carried out on September 21, 2009 by a group of specialists covering various topics.
All three peace records are different in terms of their features. They also share characteristics of ending difficult conflicts that warrant a certain case study (Wallensteen and Eriksson, 2021). For Herzegovina and Bosnia-Covina, what matters is embracing reconciliation among the previous parties involved in wars and their constituencies (Cunningham and Sawyer, 2019, p. 624). For Sudan, the main issue is power-sharing, primarily between the South and North. The main focus for a country such as Nigeria is post-war security (Cunningham and Sawyer 2019, 624). Therefore, all three scenarios have an increased probability of helping one understand the significant features in creating long-term peace.
Simultaneously, there are other themes associated with these agreements. This is particularly in features such as reduction and managing violence, the institution of universal government influence, safety reformation issues, previous fighter demobilization as well as their integration into the general public (Wallensteen and Eriksson, 2021). There are also certain components of power-sharing. However, it is important to understand the existence of various features that need deeper investigations in all of these aspects of peace agreements (Jones, 2021). Nevertheless, in this case, there are only three features of direct importance for making peace that has been identified. Consequently, the causes of clashes between different sides or the causes of the uproar have not been explored. However, peacemaking techniques comprising of the Uppsala Recommendations and its importance for future peace crafting have been examined.
Background of First Thoughts and Ideas
The three peace-making processes took place for a significant period, just as the clashes were being addressed. Every conflict is explored by historical pre-conflict and the involvement of various interviewing parties (Wallensteen and Eriksson, 2021). There were BIH negotiations that occurred between foreign ministers and three heads of state (presidents). These presidents comprise Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia, Alija Izetbegovic of BiH, and Franjo Tudjman of Croatia (Wallensteen and Eriksson, 2021). Therefore, each of the three main ethnicities had its representatives.
In Liberia, there were three warring parties and were involved in negotiations. There were two rebellious groups that comprised the Movement for Democracy in Liberia (MODEL) and the Liberian United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) (Lieberherr, 2020). The MODEL was rebel group in Liberia that became active in Mach 2003, launching its attacks from Ivory Coast (Lieberherr, 2020). Additionally, one party acted as a representative of the Liberian Government. Different from Dayton, the process of negotiations in Liberia involved several political parties and civil society organizations.
In Sudan, two parties were warring; these comprise Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM) and the government. In all the three negotiations carried out, a third party was involved during the last round of negotiation (Kuol, 2020). All three negotiations were conducted out of the country. However, they encountered conflicts at various developments (Kuol, 2020). The war of Bosnia was much shorter compared to other wars. Nevertheless, it appeared more intense, featuring the modern classical style of fighting comprising of the intervention of third parties such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Peace Negotiations
Various peace proposals were presented by a different number of external actors when war was taking place. Some actors who made proposals comprised the European Community (EC) in April 1992 (Wallensteen and Eriksson, 2021). Regardless of such efforts, the parties involved in the war did not end their planned violence until the time when an agreement was reached as a conclusion. This is evident in the war between Croats and Bosniak in 1994 (Friedman and Remington, 2019). The treaty brought to the table was based on terms of payment. However, Herzegovina and Bosnia were fighting with superior forces in Bosnia until the entry of the Dayton agreement (Friedman and Remington, 2019). Therefore, the agreement aimed at enabling Herzegovina and Bosnia to shift from an earlier post-conflict phase via consolidation and reconstruction.
The war in Liberia started as a mechanism to overthrow the incoming government under the leadership of Charles Taylor. The real negotiations on peace started before the formal ceasefire. This happened when MODEL and LURD had acquired advancements towards Monrovia, the capital city of Liberia (Lieberherr, 2020). This forced Taylor’s government to start negotiating after the intervention of the international community. However, Bosnia and other parties would have gone fighting if no intervention took place (Lieberherr, 2020). Nevertheless, there was no evidence of ceased gunfire during the negotiations, and thus the two occurred concurrently until the signing of a formal ceasefire.
Negotiations in Sudan between the government and the SPLAM happened for a long time. The Northern part was being represented by the government, while the Southern part by the SPLAM (Wallensteen and Eriksson, 2021). Additionally, the agreements lead to an inclusive peace accord which was an example of outside-driven mediation than a local process (Wallensteen and Eriksson, 2021). In all the cases, international facilitation and mediation were vital for the success of the agreement and bringing the war to an end.
Even though the three peace agreements were complex, the processing of all of them was fairly distinct in how they depended on the implementation timetables. This is an example of an important feature of how negotiation helped bring agreements between warring party’s modern process of making peace (Hillbert, 2017). However, the warring sides for BiH revealed an increasing need to agree and called for elections to be conducted within nine months after the end of the clashes.
Dayton is comprised of several circumstances or opinions that might disqualify signatory actors to the accord. These comprise parties that never cooperated with the global tribunal on war crimes in The Hague (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) (Hillbert, 2017). Liberia for CPA also comprised of a timetable for national (to be held by October 2005) and that the elected government ought to take.
From this negotiation scenario, it is evident that throughout the first stages of every war, there is a time when different sides become reluctant in entering into negotiations. Nations with higher expectations of total victory have a higher probability of viewing themselves being open to discussions as an indicator of a weak point and a tool to get the other side to give up (Roberts and Ahram, 2021). However, as the war continues, there is a possibility of the initial attitude changing.
One of the ways of decreasing the chances that peace talks will indicate some level of weakness in the domestic or opponents’ constituencies is starting negotiations from the backchannel, far from the public view. This is important because it will enable the parties to agree with one another at once when their public would have been in support of prolonged discussions and compromise (Roberts and Ahram, 2021). For instance, Palestinian and Israeli diplomats in the 1990s were familiar with the domestic pressures and, thus, carried out their discussions in far-flung European capitals such as Oslo, where the public could not see them (Roberts and Ahram, 2021). However, there are times when these negotiations are conducted without the authority of their immediate leaders.
Conclusion
Conclusively, this paper has explored various ways in how negotiation was used historically to solve conflicts in different wars carried out between Bosnia and Herzegovina, the North-South conflict agreement in Sudan, and the peace treaty that ended the war in Liberia in 1999. After examining these three wars and the process that was used to bring peace between the warring parties, it is evident that historically, various techniques were used to reach peaceful agreements between the conflicting sides. For instance, people involved in the peacemaking process separated themselves from the public to avoid prolonging the process of making peace. Additionally, to make negotiations effective in ending wars, when negotiations were happening, the war between the two parties was not stopped to fasten the process. Therefore, it is evident that historically, when warring parties engaged in negotiations and followed the above identified techniques, there was peace after conflict.
Reference List
Cunningham, K.G. and Sawyer, K. (2019) ‘Conflict negotiations and rebel leader selection,’ Journal of Peace Research, 56(5), pp.619-634.
Friedman, F. and Remington, R.A., 2019. Bosnian Muslim views of National Security. In Crises in the Balkans (pp. 93-112).
Hillbert, S. (2017) ‘Female mediators and the comprehensiveness of peace agreements,’ p. 67
Kuol, L.B.D. (2020) ‘South Sudan: the elusive quest for a resilient social contract’ Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 14(1), pp.64-83.
Lieberherr, B. (2020) ‘Ceasefire country reports: Liberia. ETH Zurich,’ pp.1-3.
Mahmud, N. A. N. and Yusoff, M. A. (2020) ‘Managing terrorism through peaceful political negotiations: the Malayan experience’ Jebat: Malaysian Journal of History, Politics & Strategic Studies, 5(4), pp.123-133.
Roberts, P. and Ahram, A. (2021) ‘How can negotiations bring wars to an end? : war on the rocks.’ War on the Rocks. Web.
Wallensteen, P. and Eriksson, M. (2021) ‘Negotiating peace: lessons from three comprehensive peace agreements’ Web.
Zartman, I.W., ed. (2019) How negotiations end. Cambridge University Press.