Negotiations and Peace Processes

The connection between negotiations and peace processes rests on two apparently straightforward and seemingly persuasive propositions. They are that tangible evidence of a commitment to peace on the part of the major combatants is needed to create the right climate for negotiations to end violent political conflict and that the pursuit of a negotiated settlement is needed to sustain any peace process. They imply a more or less symbiotic relationship between negotiations and peace processes. It is a small step from these propositions to argue that the way to peace itself lies through negotiations culminating in a political settlement. However, not merely are political settlements frequently challenged by violence, but the two propositions themselves are more problematic than they appear at first sight. Thus, in practice, the circumstances in which parties are willing to enter into negotiations vary widely. What is acceptable in one political context may prove insufficient in another. As far as the assumed relationship between political settlements and peace is concerned, even the converse relationship does not necessarily hold. The consequence of failure of the parties to reach a negotiated settlement may not be the renewed outbreak of violent conflict, as the case of Cyprus’s long, largely bloodless conflict since partition in 1974 underlines.