Peace processes must be strategically designed, well supported and skilfully implemented. Peacemaking is, however, a comparatively neglected dimension of international conflict response. Most attention and resources currently go towards peacekeeping and post-conflict peacebuilding. While they can aid security and help to rebuild, they do not generally end a war or address its causes.
This brief argues that external actors should give greater priority to supporting peace processes, placing them at the centre of a shared international strategy for countries in conflict.
Key findings:
- Peace processes are an essential means to address conflict. In the period since the mid-1990s, more wars have ended through negotiated agreement than through military victory. In cases where it ends the war, a military-only solution may exacerbate the underlying causes of conflict and fragility and pose risks for future instability. A peace process support strategy can aim to create conditions conducive for peacemaking by helping the parties to see that they are more likely to achieve their goals through a negotiated agreement. This might include the use of incentives and sanctions. It also involves seizing the opportunities to encourage parties to re-evaluate their strategy that may arise through a change in context, such as a shift in the balance of power, internal changes, or wider geopolitical shifts. External actors often use a variety of sanctions and incentives to try to influence parties to a conflict but they are rarely deployed within a broader strategy for peace process support. Sometimes these measures exacerbate the conflict, particularly if they are not designed to encourage their target’s decision to negotiate peace.
- A peace process can present an opportunity that can be seized to develop a more peaceful future by addressing the issues generating conflict, reforming state institutions and key policies, as well as forging a sound basis for future relationships between those involved in the conflict. Peace negotiations can help set the trajectory toward more resilient states and responsive governments. Effective strategies for supporting peace processes should work towards a longer time horizon. Too often external actors are so eager for an agreement to end the fighting that they encourage compromises that create serious difficulties in the medium to long-term.
- The complexity of a conflict situation may require a comprehensive response. It may require a negotiation structure capable of addressing a number of interconnected conflicts within the state or region or efforts to maintain a strong interface with other processes. Inclusiveness can be an important part of a strategy to prevent ‘spoiling’. Peace processes can be more robust if those with influence and a strong social base consider themselves to be inside. Inclusiveness should extend beyond the decision-making elites to provide mechanisms for public participation. Strategies should also aim to cultivate public support for the process and the agreement. Dialogue, negotiation and mediation require a tiny fraction of the budgets allocated to fighting wars, international peace operations and reconstruction. Only a few governments have prioritized developing specialist capacities to support peace processes. Ultimately it is the ability of those in conflict to resolve their differences that is decisive in a negotiated war-to-peace transition. External actors can make important contributions by helping them to build negotiation skills and to address capacity asymmetries between the parties.
