The mere mention of peace talks elicits attention from the media and public because people desperately want to see an end to war. However, most peace talks do not produce anything more than a semblance of an agreement between the belligerent parties. They are often merely atmospherics, meant to show the benefactors of the warring parties that they are working towards peace. Moreover, most of them fail to take into account the battlefield realities that will shape and constrain their efforts.
The main barriers to peace talks are rooted in the struggle for power and supremacy. As a result, most negotiators seek to negotiate from a position of strength, trying to impress upon their opponents that they are capable of continuing to fight and inflicting high casualties. They also use their relative strength to highlight the other side’s weakness.
Nevertheless, despite the many difficulties, peace processes tend to be messy and non-linear, with multiple sequenced small steps rather than one giant stride towards ending conflict (PSRP infographic). Even comprehensive peace deals can unravel: for example, in Chad, there were at least 39 ceasefires and revisions of peace agreements between the Government led by Idris Deby and myriad rebel groups during the 1990’s.
Another important aspect that should be addressed in peace talks is the issue of justice. In a protracted violent conflict, transgressions against justice are inevitable and they should be acknowledged as a part of the negotiation process. This can be done by including an element of accountability in the agreement, for example, through a Truth and Reconciliation Commission or by establishing a reparation mechanism.