Negotiation, the best way to resolve a conflict
The conflict is something natural in the human being, it is something that runs through their veins, since all humans will never agree on everything, there will always be differences or clashes in the immense amount of ways of thinking, commenting or acting that exist onDifferent issues, many considered controversy, such as religion and politics, or for matters as simple as the ways of dressing, sports or even the breeding form that each one uses for their children. What is not natural, is that people use violence when conflicts present themselves, in order to get their counterpart to do what he wants or needs, since these behaviors are the only thing they do is produce multiple social damage andeconomic, generating destruction, poverty, deaths or even displacements (Collier and Hoeffler, 2004).
Although humans have always been conflicting, only after World War I, people began to look for ways to resolve them peacefully and thus prevent such a fatal event from repeating themselves again. To achieve the above, the League of Nations was founded, so that war could be avoided through it, using more peaceful methods such as negotiation. However, this was not very useful, since later, in 1945, World War II was given, which produced that the League of Nations became the United Nations Organization (UN), transforming this one into the largestDefender of Peace, Security and faithful party of the negotiation method (cf. Arenal, 1990).
Already mentioned the origin of the resolution of conflicts through negotiation, I will solve the question, is the negotiation the best way to resolve a conflict?
To begin with, we can observe that there are many ways to resolve a conflict, one of them are peace agreements, where conflict parties decide not to use strength (Zartman, 1995);Another is when bilateral ceasefire agreements are produced, which allow to create an environment similar to that produced with peace agreements, however, it is not a definitive solution, it is simply reducing the power of the conflict (UCDP, 2010).
By observing the various existing forms to resolve conflicts, we can notice that the most used, over the years, are peace agreements. However, this does not mean that negotiating peace is the easiest and faster conflict resolution option, on the contrary, Zartman (1995) says that solving conflicts through negotiations is a very complicated process.
Following what is said by Zartman (1995), he mentions that there are two reasons why in the peace agreements it is difficult to achieve a solution for conflicts: the first one, is due to the differences between the groups, normally aActor is more powerful than the other, which means that reaching the negotiation is very difficult, since neither wants to feel inferior, or weaker because of the fact of having yielded before the other. The second is the importance of sovereignty, in the peace processes the presence of the international community is evidenced and this is seen as an intrusion.
Despite these reasons that could hinder conflict resolution and therefore the search for peace, negotiation remains a method widely used in the world, although with it an agreement is not always achieved and peace is reached, butEven so, you can get the intensity of the conflict to decrease, that a cessation of hostilities is achieved and that an environment that facilitates the beginning of the dialogue can be reached, in which the adversary can be heard, know what you want, what you needAnd thus get to an agreement (UCDP, 2010). For example, in Europe and in Latin America, a large number of conflicts have been solved through negotiation. (Table 1)
Table 1: Negotiated solutions of the internal conflict in the world, by geographical regions, 1986-2006 (percentage figures) [Image:]
Source: Tamayo (2011) Based on UCDP statistics (2006)
I will use as an example the conflicts of Guatemala and Indonesia, in order to illustrate how negotiation has achieved a cessation of hostilities and arrival at a peace agreement after many years of violence where there were many injured, dead and displaced.
To begin with, the armed conflict in Guatemala began in 1960, at that time, a group of officers tried to give a coup d’etat to the president of that time, Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes. The coup d’etat did not go as expected, however, the group of military became guerrillas continuing with the fight. In 1962, the revolutionary movement of November 13 was created, also called MR- 13, in this group were those that still had the intention of overthrowing the government, but this time using weapons. This movement was joined by students, workers, peasants, small businessmen, art workers, women and several political parties. President Ydigoras Fuentes, with the help of the military, managed to stop the rebellion, but leaving a large number of wounded, dead and detained in his path.
In 1963, Ydigoras Fuentes allowed the entry of former President Juan José Arévalo Bermejo, who was in exile. Defense Minister, Colonel Enrique Peralta Azurdia, did not agree with this action of the president, so he gave a coup d’etat, overthrowing him from the presidency. In his government, the so -called death squadrons, who were in charge of kidnapping, torturing and killing anyone who were against his government. Because of this, the opposition group attacks the military offices and the Congress of the Republic. Then, between 1960 and 1986, Julio César Méndez Montenegro arrived at the Presidency, unleashing an increase in violence in the country.
In 1972, during the government of General Arana Osorio, the guerrilla army of the poor appears, which was supported by the Government of Mexico, in order to create a guerrilla focus to achieve the power of the government.
During this period, the terrorist acts increased, they set fire to the Embassy of Spain in Guatemala, placed two bombs in front of the National Palace, a series of kidnappings, murders and torture occurred. To counteract this wave of attacks against the Government, General Lucas García begins with a plan called land razed. This procedure consisted of attacks on civil populations near the places where the guerrillas was, which led to a series of unparalleled massacres.
Later in 1982, during the Ríos Montt government, there were a lot of massacres and mass murders. Then, in that same year, General Ríos Montt believes the courts of special jurisdiction, which rapidly judged the people who were accused of going against the government.
In 1983, General Ríos Montt was overthrown for which he was Minister of Defense during his government, General Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctor, who eliminated the taxes of special jurisdiction and summoned a National Constituent Assembly for the creation of the creation of the creation ofa new constitution. Elections were convened, in which Marco Vinicio Cerezo won, which manages to initiate a peace process with the signing of the Esquipulas agreements
But despite having started with the peace process, there is a new coup d’etat known as El Serranazo. After this event, with great effort, in 1996 it is possible to sign the firm and lasting peace agreements, thus ending a war that lasted 36 years and left thousands dead, missing, wounded and displaced
In this case we can identify how difficult and long it is to be able to reach a solution of a conflict through negotiation, however, this achievement end with a very violent war, in which 36 years full of violence, deaths and thousands wereof massacres.
On the other hand, this is the second conflict to take as an example, that of Indonesia with the GAM paramilitary group. This conflict began in 1940, citizens wanted independence which was denied, so later the Aceh Liberation Movement (GAM) was founded in order to continue with the separatist struggle. In 1998, an approach between the central government and the GAM was achieved, to try to find a solution to the conflict. Thanks to this, President Abdurrahman Wahid made two initiatives: the first one was the "humanitarian pause" in which there would be a ceasefire;And the second of them was a "special autonomy" that would be given to the separatist movement, however, however good the two initiatives sounded, the first
It was used by both the army and the GAM to reorganize and rearm, and the second only produced small changes that were not enough for the population of Aceh. Only until the earthquake of December 26, both declared the fire and began the establishment of a negotiating table to achieve peace.
After 30 years of armed conflict, an agreement called "Memorando of Understanding" was reached, in which the group of the movement for the liberation of Aceh (GAM) promised to renounce its intention to become independent and deliver their weapons to becomeIn a political party. In return, the Indonesian government gave the region wide autonomy, withdraw much of the military placed in the area and declared a general amnesty for the GAM guerrillas.
As in the previous case, through a negotiation it was possible to end a long and violent conflict, where many civilians lost their lives. Like any process to reach an agreement, this was long and difficult but of great help to put an end to such a tragic conflict. You can also show the window of opportunity that was used to start negotiations, which was the earthquake. Then we can say that negotiating is a difficult process but for this reason it must be aware of any break that occurs to start with the process and get victorious from it.
To conclude, I think that negotiation is the best way to resolve conflicts, since although not always as a purpose a peace agreement, if it helps to reduce the intensity of the conflict, in addition to serving as a way to listen to the adversary, know thatThink, what he feels, that he needs and wants to achieve, and thus achieve a cessation of hostilities building proposals that make those involved in the conflict are happy. Negotiation is a process of a lot of work, of listening and speaking, of respecting the opinions and thoughts of the other, of having a mentality open to dialogue and listening, is a process that cannot be taken lightly, since in the leastcarelessness everything built can collapse and have to start from scratch, this new start being a little more difficult since each part will be on the defensive and denied to give something they want to solve the controversies. I think that if in the world it is the most used method, it is because it must be the best, because through him we manage to place ourselves in the shoes of our enemy and for a moment to understand and think what would I do in its place? Would you fight the same way for what I want? I would like not to understand me, not to listen to me or simply refuse to offer me just a little of what I want? With the negotiation we managed to get closer to the other party, understand ourselves more and in this way carry out projects in which all are satisfied and without any resentment that produces a rebellion later building a new problem and thus giving birth to another conflict whereAgain thousands of people die, leave wounds and where there are multiple losses both economic and in society in general.
References
- Arenal, Celestino. (1990). Introduction to international relationships. 3. ª ed. Madrid: Tecnos.
- Collier, Paul;Hoeffler, Anke and Söderbom, Måns. (2004). On the duration of civil war. Journal of Peace Research, 41 (3), pp. 253-273.
- Tamayo Bustamante, Victor. (2011). Analysis of the economic foundations of lasting peace in the post conflict: an analysis based on main components (research work to opt for the Master’s degree in Political Science). Medellín, Colombia: University of Antioquia, Institute of Political Studies.
- UPPSALA Conflict Data Program (UCDP) (2010). Definitions. [online]. UCDP Database: Uppsala University. Available at: www.UCDP.UU.se/database. [Accessed May 22, 2019].
- Valencia Agudelo, Germán Darío;Alderid Gutiérrez Loaiza and Sandra Johansson. (2012). Negotiate peace: a synthesis of studies on the negotiated resolution of internal armed conflicts. Political Studies, 40, Institute of Political Studies, University of Antioquia, (pp. 149-174).
- Zartman, William. (1985). Ripe for Resolution. Oxford: Oxford University
Leave feedback