Lack of Forums for Negotiation

3. Factors That Make Conflict Intractable

This introductory article was written by ChatGPT at the direction of Heidi Burgess, who reviewed, edited, and approved the final content.
For more information

Negotiations do not begin just because the parties have issues to discuss. Before substantive talks can happen, the parties often have to agree on a process: where to meet, who will be present, who will chair or mediate, what the agenda will be, whether the talks will be public or private, and whether any third party can be trusted. These "talks about talks" can become a major barrier. If one side believes that the forum is biased, that the location gives the other side symbolic advantage, or that the mediator is secretly working for an opponent, the parties may refuse to participate at all. In such cases, the absence of an acceptable process prevents the parties from even exploring whether a substantive agreement is possible.

The war in Ukraine illustrates the forum problem. Switzerland hosted a major peace summit in 2024, but Russia was not invited and did not participate. Reuters reported that Switzerland said Russia was not invited "at this stage," while also acknowledging that Russia would eventually have to be involved in any real peace process. The Associated Press reported that Russia rejected Ukraine's peace proposals and that some countries wanted Russia involved before fully endorsing the process. This does not mean that Ukraine was wrong to seek international backing, or that Russia was negotiating in good faith. It does show, however, that a forum that one principal party rejects can build diplomatic pressure, but cannot by itself produce a negotiated settlement.

Sudan offers another version of the same problem: not the absence of forums, but too many competing ones. Since the war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces began in 2023, there have been multiple mediation tracks involving Jeddah, IGAD, Egypt, Geneva, the African Union, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and others. The Institute for Security Studies warned that the proliferation of peace processes allowed the warring parties to "forum-shop", choosing whichever process seemed most favorable, while avoiding binding commitments. Reuters also reported that U.S.-backed talks in Switzerland began in 2024 without the Sudanese army present, sharply limiting what mediators could accomplish. Here the problem was not lack of international attention. It was the lack of a unified, authoritative, mutually acceptable process with enough leverage to keep the parties engaged.

The Ethiopia-Tigray conflict shows how disputes over the mediator and venue can delay negotiations even when all sides face enormous costs from continued fighting. In 2022, the Ethiopian federal government favored an African Union process led by former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo. The Tigray People's Liberation Front, however, rejected Obasanjo as too close to Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and called instead for talks in Nairobi overseen by Kenya and the United States, according to The New Humanitarian. The dispute was eventually overcome, and the parties reached a cessation of hostilities agreement through an AU-led process in South Africa. The example is useful because it shows both sides of the problem: distrust of a mediator can block talks, but careful adjustment of the process, venue, and supporting actors can sometimes make talks possible.

For conflict resolution purposes, the legitimacy of the forum is not a minor procedural detail. It is part of the substance of the conflict. A neutral or at least acceptable setting can give each side enough confidence to participate without appearing weak or trapped. An acceptable third party can provide confidentiality, shuttle messages, protect face, clarify misunderstandings, suggest options, and help the parties move from posturing to problem solving. Beyond Intractability's overview of mediation emphasizes the importance of mediator impartiality, empathy, and the ability to help parties generate new ideas. But "neutrality" does not always mean having no interests at all. In many international conflicts, effective mediators are trusted, not because they are perfectly neutral, but because they are seen as competent, fair enough, able to deliver something useful, and constrained by a process that both sides understand.

Much respected mediator and mediation scholar John Paul Lederach described what he called "insider-partial mediation" early in his career, when he was working on conflicts in Latin America, where that form of mediation is common. An insider-partial mediator is done by a person who is already involved in the conflict (i.e. someone who is an "insider"), and, at least to some extent, is aligned with one side or the other (hence, someone who is "partial"). Such mediators are typically people of such high stature that they have credibility with people on all sides of the conflict and is trusted to be fair, even though he or she is associated with one side or another. Oscar Arias, former President of Costa Rica, is one well-known example of an insider-partial mediator who helped create the Esquipulas agreement to end the Central American wars in the 1980s.Though Arias was a party to the conflict, his stature as head of a traditionally neutral state made him acceptable as a mediator

When parties cannot agree on a forum or a third party, constructive conflict handling may require preparatory work before formal negotiations begin. This can include quiet exploratory talks, separate consultations, back-channel communication, confidence-building measures, agreement on procedural rules, or the use of several complementary third parties with different kinds of access. The goal is not to pretend that distrust does not exist. The goal is to design a process strong enough to contain that distrust while the parties test whether substantive progress is possible. Without such a process, conflicts can remain stuck not because no agreement is imaginable, but because the parties cannot agree on a safe and legitimate place to look for one.

—————————

This page was created by ChatGPT in response to this prompt. It was then reviewed, edited, supplemented and approved by Heidi Burgess. More information about how and why we are using AI in this way, and about the growing number of ways in which Beyond Intractability is using ChatGPT, Claude and other AI systems to generate content and build out the BI system, is available on our BI/AI Overview Page.