Peace talks are an intricate dance — often choreographed by third parties — among the parties in a conflict to gradually exchange war for peace. But they don’t always succeed, and even when successful, they don’t necessarily last.
One reason is that the success of peace negotiations depends in part on whether they take place openly or secretly. While there are advantages to both, secret negotiations make it harder for opponents to scuttle the process. But, according to some research, transparency can also be beneficial in peacemaking.
Another factor that affects the effectiveness of peace talks is how many of the decision makers are in the room. If the top leaders are absent, or their representatives fail to convey their interests, the talks may go nowhere. However, it can be difficult to convince leaders to agree to peace talks in the early stages of a conflict, and they may wait for the “ripe moment” to start high-level negotiations.
Leaders may also be concerned that their enemy will view their willingness to engage in peace talks as a sign of weakness. This is especially true if the conflict is asymmetrical, such as a civil war or a rebellion against a foreign occupation. Leaders must weigh these concerns against the risks of further conflict, and decide whether to go to peace talks. In these situations, influential third parties might help encourage the parties to begin by imposing a deadline for starting negotiations.
About the Author
