Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisions
The activity of peacemaking is inherently characterized by competing priorities that do not seem to be attainable at the same time. This article by Anne Isabel Kraus, Lars Kirchhoff, Tatiana Kyselova, Julia Palmiano Federer as well as CSS’ Simon J. A. Mason and Owen Frazer focuses on the question of how third parties can deal with dilemmas and trade-offs when mediating violent political conflicts.
Should mediators ignore human rights violations because pushing the issue could jeopardize relationships with political actors who grant access for humanitarian aid? What should they do if it is unclear whether bringing moderates and hardliners together will help the peace process or radicalize moderate actors? What should dialogue facilitators do when the act of identifying non-mainstream groups to be included into dialogue increases division and polarization? The activity of peacemaking is inherently characterized by trade-offs and dilemmas where two equally compulsory imperatives do not appear to be attainable at the same time.
Strategies to mitigate trade-offs
Based on their experiences in Myanmar, Thailand, and Ukraine as well as a survey of the literature of various disciplines, the authors of this new article propose several strategies that mediators can employ to mitigate these dilemmas and trade-offs. They argue that a truly constructive way of dealing with these situations begins by acknowledging that an impasse has been reached and by looking beyond immediate controversies and difficulties. More specifically, that means that third parties should 1) respect normative, political and practical limits where they have a truly constitutive function, 2) deconstruct them where they do not, 3) and uncover and utilize the space of unusual but acceptable possibilities that have either been overlooked or never explored.
Reference