Peace Processes Peace Maintenance of Relationships of proven

Peace Processes

Peace: Maintenance of Relationships of proven value and worth

A Peace Process is the exploration of a valuable and worthwhile relationship. Six Elements of a Relationship 1) Identity 2) Interests 3) Patterns of interaction 4) Power 5) Limits on behavior 6) Evolving Perceptions

(1) Identity a) How each perceives itself in contrast to the other b) The experiences that have shaped a person’s or group’s worldview and ways of acting in relationship with the other Peace/Enemy Exercise

Outlines of a Middle East settlement: 1. 1. A sovereign and non-militarized Palestinian state whose borders would be based on 1967 lines, with land swaps of equal size to accommodate demographic realities 2. 2. Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Arab neighborhoods as the capital of Palestine 3. 3. A robust international force to provide security and monitor implementation of the agreement 4. 4. A solution to the refugee issue that does not threaten Israel's demographic balance

(2) Interests a) A relationship begins when the parties have been drawn into the same space by their interests. b) Identify goals and interests that neither could achieve without the other. c) Interest are not simply objectively given but are defined by the deep-rooted fears, hopes, wounds, values, and perceptions that form a people’s sense of what is threatening and what is vital to protect their identity d) Interests are a function of the relationship. Each party recognizes that its ability to realize its own interests depends in some way on the actions of the other.

(3) Patterns of interaction a) Trust: A belief in, and willingness to act on the basis of, the words, actions, and decisions of another. i) Calculation-based Trust ii) Identification-based Trust b) Trust/Distrust i) Trust: confident positive expectations ii) Distrust: confident negative expectations

(4) Power: the capacity to change the course of events or to make things happen The decision to reaching a settlement i) A judgment that the present situation no longer serves a party’s interests ii) A judgment that the substance of a fair settlement is available iii) Foresee a settlement that is tolerable iv) A judgment that leaders on the other side will be willing and politically able to negotiate such a settlement v) A judgment that the balance of forces will permit a fair settlement

1. A judgment that the present situation no longer serves a party’s interests. (1) A delay in negotiation will not create a more attractive situation and will even likely harm the parties interests 2. A judgment that the substance of a fair settlement is available. (1)Adds a comparative element to first judgment (2) Is the future harm of the present situation better or worse than a negotiated settlement?

(3)Foresee a settlement that is tolerable (1) How borders will be drawn (2) Security measures (3) Nature of the relationship: People also want to visualize what it will be like to live with the new relationship: require people to view their present enemy in less abstract terms and more as persons.

A judgment that leaders on the other side will be willing and politically able to negotiate such a settlement (1) An understanding of what the other side really needs and wants. (2) An understanding of the strategy of other side’s leader’s for achieving their aims. (3) An understanding of the ability of the other side’s leaders to develop support for a settlement.

A judgment that the balance of forces will permit a fair settlement If the balance of power favors your adversary (and thus they will not negotiate seriously), then a party may look for ways to restructure the balance of power so that negotiation will be fairer

Limits on behavior a) Must respect what each sees as threatening its sense of identity, integrity, and self-esteem as well as concrete interests b) Respect for the limit on the other’s behavior Constraints on your side are real. Constraints on their side are disingenuous.

Evolving Perceptions “An effective problem-solving relationship can prove so useful that it is perceived as a valuable interest that must be protected for its own sake. ” (p 42)

Problem-solving: Transforming a conflict into a problem that we have. The problem to be solved: the gap between where we are and where we want to be

Psychological Prerequisites for Mutual Acceptance (Kelman): 1. Both side had to acquire insight into each other’s perspective so that they could understand the resistance to acceptance. 2. Each side had to see that there were reasonable people on the other side and that there were issues to talk about, rather than that the two sets of demands were mutually exclusive. 3. Each side had to distinguish the ideological dreams and rhetoric from the operational programs of the other. Israel had to be persuaded that the Palestine dream of a united Palestine did not preclude the acceptance of the State of Israel and a stable peace with it. Palestinians had to be persuaded that the Zionist dream of the ingathering of exiles did not necessitate expansionist policies of annexation and settlement. 4. Both sides had to see that mutual concessions could bring about change leading toward resolution. 5. Each side had to believe that leadership changes conducive to a stable peace could take place in the other side. Israelis had to be convinced that the PLO was becoming a political organization (as opposed to terrorist one). Palestinians had to be convinced that the hardline politics of the current Israeli government could become more conciliatory. 6. Each side had to see responsiveness to its human psychological needs by the other side through symbolic gestures.

1. What could overcome the present resistances to acceptance of the other? 2. What are the conditions that would make reasonable people emerge as potential leaders? 3. How could you make the distinction between operational programs and ideological dreams clear? 4. Is another path to settlement besides Oslo possible? 5. What would help facilitate leadership change? 6. What gestures would create a sense of responsiveness to the psychological needs of the other side?

Outlines of a Middle East settlement: 1. 1. A sovereign and non-militarized Palestinian state whose borders would be based on 1967 lines, with land swaps of equal size to accommodate demographic realities 2. 2. Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Arab neighborhoods as the capital of Palestine 3. 3. A robust international force to provide security and monitor implementation of the agreement 4. 4. A solution to the refugee issue that does not threaten Israel's demographic balance