This paper is set out to give a possible account of why so many peace processes concerning intra-state ethnic conflicts have produced „no war, no peace“ situations, hence states of negative peace where risks for resumed fightings are high, rather than an actual resolution fostering mutual understanding and recognition involving society at large.
The first section of this assignment is designed to point out the necessity to resolve conflicts by peaceful means as well as of conflict transformation and, thereby, deals with the wide-spread assumption first introduced by Zartman that conflicts require a “ripe moment” as the ideal entry point for eg. mediators to reach a peace agreement among the belligerents which I have argued only leads to a peace settlement and thus, more often to a flawed peace than to the conflict's resolution.
John Paul Lederach's approach of cultivating peace and Ramsbotham's ideas of conflict transformation both stressing the cruciality of a long-term approach to peace processes have underlined my argumentation. The second part then explores the fundamentals of the social psychological aspects of ethnic conflicts reflected upon so well by Herbert Kelman who builds upon Burton's research concerning the dimension of deep rooted conflicts - as ethical conflicts usually can be described! - emphasising human needs and fears over interests, since they can be seen as the root cause for the inadequacy of Zartman's theory of the “ripe moment”.
Moreover, the concept of work-shops designed by Kelman as a feature of track II diplomacy in conflict resolution shall serve as a successful example for an alternative in a long-term approach to peace processes. Altogether, it is to notice that the paper is based on the constructivist assumption of the ethnic concept in contrast to the primordialist thought. Furthermore, Zartman's “ripe moment”, should not in anyway be discredited in its contribution to conflict resolution as it can serve as a valuable turning point.
However, it should not be seen as the solution but rather as an initial/accompanying step in a long-term process that is essential for a sustainable peace. Finally, when taking these considerations in mind the core element needed in addition for a successful peace process is political and societal will in order to really overcome “no war, no peace” situations on the long-term!
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. On the Importance of a long-term Approach to Peace Processes
2.1 On the Inadequacies of Zartman's „Ripe Moment“
2.2 The Social Psychological Dimensions of Ethnic Conflicts
3. Conclusion
4. Bibliography
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper examines the limitations of Zartman's "ripe moment" theory in resolving intra-state ethnic conflicts, arguing that it often leads to flawed "no war, no peace" situations. It advocates for a comprehensive, long-term approach to peace that prioritizes conflict transformation and addresses the deep-rooted social and psychological dimensions of identity and human needs.
- Critique of the "ripe moment" and "hurting stalemate" concepts.
- The significance of long-term conflict transformation vs. short-term settlements.
- Social psychological analysis of ethnic conflict (needs vs. interests).
- The role of track II diplomacy and problem-solving workshops.
- Constructivist understanding of ethnic identity and conflict dynamics.
Excerpt from the Book
ON THE INADEQUACIES OF ZARTMAN'S „RIPE MOMENT“
Intra-state ethnic conflicts reaching an international dimension can be considered a phenomenon of the 20th as well as 21st century often threatening the maintenance of international peace and security. The UN Charter, therefore, stresses decisively in Chapter VI the importance of pacific settlements of disputes whereby Article 33(1) points out that “The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.”1
Conflict resolution to solve ethical conflicts has taken many forms so far but has most often lead to what we would describe as a flawed peace. Roger Mac Ginty argues that these “no war, no peace” situations occur in three forms: 1. where “[...] a violent conflict has largely been contained in a geographic region of a larger state” (eg. the “two Ugandas”), 2. “[...] where a peace accord has been reached between the main antagonists in a civill war but the implementation of the accord becomes stalled and fails to move towards a truly transformative peace”, 3. where “[...] a peace process becomes established through a ceasefire and a routine of inter-group meetings.”2
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This section introduces the core thesis that current peace processes often fail to deliver sustainable resolution, necessitating a move toward long-term conflict transformation.
On the Importance of a long-term Approach to Peace Processes: This chapter argues that reliance on the "ripe moment" leads to superficial settlements and stresses the necessity of addressing underlying social and psychological factors in ethnic conflicts.
On the Inadequacies of Zartman's „Ripe Moment“: An analysis of the practical limitations of Zartman's theory, highlighting how it prioritizes power dynamics over human needs and transformative processes.
The Social Psychological Dimensions of Ethnic Conflicts: An exploration of how deep-rooted identity, collective fears, and normative/perceptual processes sustain conflicts, suggesting that facilitated workshops are vital for reconciliation.
Conclusion: The final section synthesizes the argument that positive peace requires moving beyond short-term fixes toward a deeper, multidimensional approach to conflict resolution.
Bibliography: Provides a list of academic sources and literature used to support the theoretical arguments regarding conflict resolution and social psychology.
Keywords
Conflict Resolution, Peace Processes, Ripe Moment, Ethnic Conflict, Conflict Transformation, Social Psychology, Ontological Needs, Track II Diplomacy, Problem-Solving Workshops, Constructivism, Negative Peace, Positive Peace, Hurting Stalemate, Identity, International Security.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic paper?
The paper evaluates why many peace processes fail to resolve intra-state ethnic conflicts, specifically critiquing the over-reliance on Zartman's "ripe moment" theory and proposing a long-term approach based on conflict transformation.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
The key themes include the distinction between peace settlement and peace resolution, the role of human needs vs. interests in conflict, the constructivist view of identity, and the importance of addressing social-psychological barriers.
What is the author's primary research argument?
The author argues that the "ripe moment" (or hurting stalemate) is insufficient as a standalone strategy, as it often results in a "no war, no peace" outcome rather than fostering genuine mutual understanding.
Which scientific methods or theoretical frameworks are applied?
The paper utilizes a constructivist framework to define ethnic identity and relies on conflict resolution theory, incorporating insights from scholars like Herbert Kelman, John Burton, and John Paul Lederach.
What does the main body of the text cover?
The main body critiques the "ripe moment" model, analyzes the social-psychological root causes of deep-rooted ethnic conflicts, and explains how track II diplomacy workshops can facilitate positive, transformative change.
Which keywords best describe this study?
Core keywords include Conflict Resolution, Ethnic Conflict, Conflict Transformation, Ripe Moment, Track II Diplomacy, and Social Psychology.
How does the author define the "no war, no peace" situation?
The author defines it as a state of negative peace where conflicts are either contained geographically, stalled through failed implementation, or frozen in ceasefires without transformative progress.
Why does the author advocate for "track II diplomacy"?
Track II diplomacy, particularly through problem-solving workshops, is advocated because it allows private citizens to address the human needs, fears, and psychological barriers that official power-based negotiations often overlook.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Anna Scheithauer (Autor:in), 2011, On the Importance of a Long-term Approach to Peace Processes, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/350704
