February 5: Linking Assessment and Design

Laue: "Getting to the Table: Creating the Forum"

In this article, Laue addresses the issue of "getting to the table". He talks about what must happen before negotiation can begin. Laue argues that a lot of people view the first step in the negotiation process as finding out what the problem is, when in reality there are several things that must happen before the process even gets to that point (identifying who the parties are, who will participate, where they will meet, how they will interact, etc.). Laue addresses several ways of getting parties to the table when they do not willingly go themselves.
I found this article very informative. Whenever I read a case study, my first inclination is to start with the question, "what is the problem in this conflict?" I always want to jump right into the process. However, Laue says that there are pre-negotiation steps that must be taken. Even when just doing analysis, I think it's helpful to follow this order. If you try to identify the problem without knowing who the parties are or what values they hold, it's going to be hard to find what's really causing the conflict.

Zartman: The Timing of Peace Initiatives (Darby and Mac Ginty. 2008. Contemporary Peacemaking. 2nd ed. Pg. 22-35)

In this article, Zartman discusses the importance of timing in intervention. He begins by saying that a lot of attention in conflict resolution is placed on the substance of conflicts, but for peace initiatives it is also vital to consider timing and ripeness. He talks about the idea of a "Mutually Hurting Stalemate" as a moment when conflict is ripe for negotiation because parties want to find a "Way Out". Zartman argues that conflict is ripe for negotiation when parties perceive an MHS and a WO. Whether they are objectively present doesn't matter. On the other hand, he says that ripeness does not ensure the success of negotiation, nor does a lack of ripeness ensure defeat.
I think this article brings up a very important point. I like that Zartman clarifies that MHS and WO are about perception. This allows for the idea that interveners might be able to "ripen" a conflict through education. It's also a little disheartening because parties may be stuck in a horrible stalemate, yet the fact that they don't realize it or want to admit it can hold them back from negotiation. I also have trouble with the idea that the best time to create a negotiation is when parties are at their lowest points. Couldn't this kind of negotiation make parties feel like they are just conceding rather than collaborating? Is it possible that parties in this kind of situation would regret or possible resent the negotiations in the future?