With the latest round of peace talks, in Astana, set to begin today, there’s a sense that this time will be different. After all, the principal backers of the main belligerents — Russia and Turkey — have now come to terms. But is that really true?
Peacemaking efforts often have mixed results. Conflicts can grind on despite international efforts to arrange talks and encourage a settlement, as was the case in Sri Lanka or Sudan. Even if a peace agreement is clinched, horrific tragedy can still occur. The August 1993 Arusha Accords in Rwanda were supposed to bring an end to the country’s bloody civil war, but they collapsed into a 100-day genocide that left 800,000 dead.
A key problem is that negotiating parties may have competing objectives or be deeply factionalized. The regime in Syria, for example, has little incentive to negotiate with rebels that it has largely defeated and who are desperate to remain relevant in the conflict.
Furthermore, the expectations that surround a peace process are often unrealistic. For example, some parties think that merely stopping fighting will lead to peace, while others see negotiations as zero-sum games that will only result in painful compromises.
Other challenges include the lack of a solid platform to build on, power imbalances, unwieldy and complex political structures, and the need to break ingrained patterns of behavior in conflict-torn societies. Some studies suggest that the most effective strategy for dealing with spoilers is to strengthen moderate political alliances, sometimes through a power-sharing arrangement, that enjoy broad legitimacy and support and have the authority to speak out against violence and acts of retribution.