WHY DO PEACE PROCESSES FAIL?

It seems almost paradoxical that peace processes seem to fail so often, peace is universally agreed to be a far better state than any conflict. So, it is crucial to understand why peace processes fail and the complex factors that cause them to fail so that future peace processes may be more successful. In this essay I will argue that factors such as a distrust of international values, the exclusion of women and LGBT+ minorities from the peace process, as well as the continued presence of violence in society are the key factors as to why a peace process can fail both domestically and politically. This essay will also focus on how crucial involving all aspects of society, particularly women and LGBT+ minorities, is to the success of a peace treaty and for its long-term success. The essay aims to argue that, simply put, a peace treaty is more likely to succeed and reduce violence in a state if most of society is engaged and motivated to maintain the peace treaty and peace itself for future generations.

Power imbalance between the factions in a conflict is a major factor for understanding why peace process fail. When one faction believes they have the upper hand, either political or militarily, they are more likely to press this advantage and gain a more powerful position rather than engage with a peace process where they would be forced to compromise. This is the most geopolitical and realist factor for understanding why peace processes fail. This is due to the fact it focuses on the political and military circumstances rather the engagement and involvement of women and other minority groups within the peace process. Sarah Maddison highlights the political reality of continued violence despite the possibility of peace by stating “Concern with risk neglects the fact that conflict is an essential and ever-present political dynamic”[1]. Simple put, the realist politics of conflict and peace negotiations can mean that peace negotiations and the peace process can fail due to the fact that one faction believes they can secure a stronger position against their opposition, or indeed ‘win’ their conflict, rather than compromise with their opposition in a peace process.

Another major factor as to why a peace process can fail is the, perhaps, legitimate concerns the population and political groups may have with the peace process or lack of transitional justice. If a peace process does not engage the general population or implement a form of transitional justice that satisfies the people and ends the injustices that existed pre-conflict then it is unlikely to succeed as the general public, or political class, may simply reject it. This phenomenon can simply be identified in many places with the slogan ‘No Justice, No Peace’. Transitional justice can often be a very difficult process for a state to navigate and so it is understandable why many peace processes either do not address it or focus on very limited elements of transitional justice. Julie Bernath supports this argument that an incorrectly implemented transitional justice can have devastating effects on a peace process by expressing “Resistance to transitional justice brings to the fore debates over who is legitimately able to define the past”[2]. By being unable to define the past, and therefore institution effective transitional justice, a peace process can unravel as the process itself does not satisfy the needs of the public or political class.

Another factor crucial for understanding why a peace process fails is the resistance to the transitional justice instituted by the peace process by domestic political groups or political class. This is the polar opposite to the factor mentioned previously. A peace process may create a comprehensive system for post-conflict transitional justice but it may be resisted by political groups within the state for being far too transformative and threatening to the old political and economic power structures. Julie Bernath underlines this political phenomenon by stating “Resistance to transitional justice, for instance, points to power imbalances within transitional justice processes from a geopolitical perspective”[3]. This geopolitical factor highlights how the pre-conflict political class and pressure groups can compromise a peace process by undermining the process of transitional justice. By resisting the instituted transitional justice, these groups aim to maintain the pre-conflict power structures that usually benefited them and restrict the ability of minority groups, like women, to assert themselves in the post-war political structure. Domestic opposition to transitional justice that is deemed too far reaching by domestic political opposition can cause a peace process to fail despite success negotiations.

The role of the international is crucial for the success of many peace process, however, when the international community makes mistakes, it can cause a peace process to fail. It is often very difficult for the international community to grasp the niche issues that created the foundations for conflict in a state. There is also further politics occurring within the international space, especially within the United Nations, that may undermine and ‘water down’ the potential success of a peace process. Naomi Cahn supports the argument that the involvement of the international community can limit the possibilities of a peace process by stating “Women are severely constrained by the United Nations’ discursive norms of speech and conduct, which make it impossible for critical, anti-​ imperial, and anti-​militarist views to be “heard””[4]. The United Nations is infamous for its ‘watering down’ of feminist goals within its political mechanisms for the creation of compromised peace process, another factor Naomi Cahn highlights by asserting “While there is much to celebrate about the Security Council’s WPS Agenda in terms of policy and institutional developments, admission into the inner sanctum of the Security Council’s work has come at some cost to feminist goals”[5]. The involvement of the international community can mean that many of the domestic issues causing conflict are not resolved due to how niche and difficult to understand they are for the international community as well as many of the domestic feminist influences in the peace process may be diluted due to international politics. This can cause a peace process to fail as it is restricted by international factors unwilling to embrace radical ideas.

Resistance to the involvement of the international community by domestic groups is also another factor that can cause a peace process to fail. The involvement of the international community can cause apprehension within many domestic ‘traditionalist’ groups as they fear the encroachment of ‘Western’ values and the perceived undermining of their way of life and position of political power. Cilija Harders illustrates this point by expressing “Cultural relativism on the part of “western” actors gives oppressive regimes leeway to hide human rights violations behind “traditions”.”[6]. By fearing the increasing involvement of the West, many ‘traditionalist’ groups may take this as an excuse to enable more extreme measures to maintain their position in society and resist a peace process. This can create a paradoxical phenomenon. That the increased involvement and investment of the international community in a peace process can cause domestic groups to increase their resistance to the peace process, and particularly any kind of transitional justice, due to the fears of undermining their ‘traditional values’ and cause a peace process to fail. Understanding this factor is crucial for understanding how the international community can better implement itself in the peace process without alienating ‘traditional’ groups.

Transformative justice, brought forth by a successful peace process, is the aim for any post-conflict agreement. However, the innate challenges a new political dynamic can bring to a state can often instigate further violence in the new political order. This long-term fear of the failure of transitional justice to continue the success of the peace process is a major reason why a peace process can fail in the long term. Sarah Maddison addresses this risk within all aspects of transitional justice by highlighting the future risk as “Depends upon accepting the risk of politics”[7]. Even if a peace process is successful initially in ending violence, the further attempts of implementing transitional justice for long term change can create future violence due to the innate risks expanding politics brings. The creation of a new political order in a post-conflict peace settlement can be crucial for the success of transitional justice, however it also creates new risks as it expands the potential for further political conflict that has been enabled by the new political order and disrupts the long-term success of the peace process.

The transformation of a state in a post-conflict peace settlement is crucial for the success of a peace process as it aims to eliminate the causes of violence that escalated into conflict. However, many of the factors that caused the conflict in the first place are so historic and imbedded within a society that it is almost impossible to overcome and inevitably reverts back to conflict and causes the peace process to fail as any form of transitional justice is unable to change the core factors that cause conflict. Sarah Maddison supports this argument by stating “Violence and struggle leave deep scars on the people who are directly engaged in fighting, and on their families and communities”[8]. By having a society so deeply effected by years, or decades, of violence and conflict it presents a serious challenge to any peace process as it has to overcome deep rooted historic challenges. In many places, the peace process and transitional justice is not enough to stop the state from reverting back to the place of conflict and violence occurs again despite the best attempts to minimize it. This is the greatest challenge for post-conflict states and a major reason why a peace process can fail.

The role of women within the peace process is crucial to its success, as it engages atleast half of a society within a peace process and motivates them to see its continued success. However, most peace process and peace agreements rarely see women outside the context of ‘victims’ of the conflict rather than important actors for the resolution of the conflict as well as the continued relevance of the peace agreement after the conflict. Christine Bell identifies this failure in most peace agreements by expressing “Women are largely not referred to in implementation provisions, or indeed in implementation agreements”[9]. It may not be malicious, by the continued ignorance of the role of women within the peace process, and the benefits they can bring to the success of that peace process, is a factor towards understanding why peace processes fail. The inability to engage with women in a post-conflict society can lead to a continued existence of the discrimination and private violence that escalated into conflict within that society in the first place. Therefore, limiting the ability of any kind of transformative justice and endangering the ability to implement a successful peace agreement.

The purposeful exclusion of women is a serious issue within making success peace agreements and a major reason why they can fail. It is a simple fact that many peace agreements and negotiations do not even mention women, let alone their role within the peace process. Only 13% of pre-negotiation peace agreements[10] even mention women. This exclusion of women is a major flaw within various peace processes that inevitably lead to their failure. This can be seen with the exclusion of women in Afghanistan and the failure of the peace agreement there, Naomi Cahn illustrates this point by stating “In talks with the international community, not one Afghan woman had been involved”[11]. By not involving Afghan women within the various international negotiations, it created a serious long-term issue that ended up with the collapse of the democratic Afghan government and the return of the Taliban. The exclusion of women within the peace process and transitional justice is a major factor in understanding why a peace process can inevitably fail even after a few years success.

The role of LGBT+ groups in the peace process and transitional justice is often neglected by politics and the international community but are also crucial for the success of these processes as these groups can help to end the systematic violence that created the conflict in the first place. However, due to this neglect by wider political groups this has created a situation where LGBT+ groups often struggle to assert themselves within the peace process as they often lack the representation and language to express themselves as political actors or victims of a conflict. Lina Cespedes addresses this issue by expressing “LGBTI organizations have faced greater challenges in building a tailored knowledge to provide a particular interpretation of the gross rights violations they have suffered”[12]. LGBT+ organisations can provide crucial resources for the success of a peace process and transitional justice and are crucial for the success of a peace agreement, as they often represent the most minoritized groups within a society. Therefore, their inclusion can often help created institutional change. The neglect of LGBT+ groups within the peace process can jeopardise the success of that process by not engaging all aspects of society.

The role of domestic opposition is often overlooked. With many organisations, and the international community, sometimes forgetting that even the most far reaching, institution changing, and transformative peace process can fail if groups within the state the peace process is being implemented for. This is especially true when it comes to the role of women and the ‘traditional’ groups that may resist their expanded role within a post-conflict society. Cilija Harders expresses how ‘traditional’ groups can undermine a peace process by trying to reassert their influence in a post-conflict peace settlement by stating “The older generation has a strong interest in restoring their control over family reproduction”[13]. By resisting transitional justice and the changing role of women within a previously male dominated society, ‘traditional’ groups and political parties can undermine a peace process and cause it to fail as it is unable to implement any kind of long-term peace or transitional justice due to the continued oppression of women.

Private violence, such as domestic violence and social violence, are major contributors for the escalation of violence into conflict in a society. However, preventing private violence is often ignored in peace agreements and therefore weakens their effectiveness to stop violence as a whole in a society. It is an unfortunate fact that women are often the victims of domestic violence and this therefore places men into a position of violence as a form of identity in society and victimhood as an identity for women. Cilija Harders highlights how violence can become an identity for men by stating “In terms of agency, violence can nevertheless be understood as an identity resource for men”[14]. When violence becomes a key indicator for identity, either as a perpetrator or victim of it, the ability for a peace process to be successful becomes increasingly difficult within a society and the chance for any successful transformative justice becomes impossible. When violence becomes pervasive in a society it can easily escalate into conflict due to the desensitization of violence in a society. Without removing casual violence in all aspects of society, such as domestic violence, the causes of conflict will remain, and the peace process will fail.

Demilitarization of armed factions in a society is a fundamental part of successful peace processes. By reducing the ability of groups to enact violence, the chances of violence decrease. However, many actors and factions are ignored or neglected by the demilitarization phase of a peace process and go on to commit further acts of violence and prolong the conflict. This is especially true for women directly involved in conflict as soldiers or guerilla fighters. Cilija Harders highlights this phenomenon by stating “Women have taken and still are taking part in conflicts as combatants, they are often ignored during phases of demobilisation and reintegration”[15]. The inability for actors within a peace process to fully demobilise all of society due to an assumed pacifism of certain actors, especially women, is a major reason why a peace process can fail. A society must be fully demobilised after a conflict to ensure that any future violence does not escalate into armed conflict, by failing to do this a peace process fails at a fundamental aspect of ensuring peace.

Conflict usually arises due to an imbalance of economic resources and the violence used to ensure their unequal distribution to a ruling class or other sections of society at the explicit cost of other aspects of society. If a peace process or transitional justice does not redistribute a society’s resources in a post-conflict peace settlement, then the core factors leading to conflict will remain and the peace process will ultimately fail. Sarah Maddison highlights this important point by asserting “Systematic discrimination and inequality of access to resources, employment, and land, have either been a direct cause of violent conflict”[16]. By being able to disrupt the economy of violence that created the foundations of conflict in the first place, a peace process can more effectively take hold in society as a wider portion of society is now invested in the peace agreement due to transitional justice redistributing economic resources to traditionally marginalised groups, such as women. Without this redistribution, economic violence will continue within a state and cause the likely failure of any peace process.

The distrust of a political elite, and their ability, or more accurately inability, to implement a sustainable peace for all of society is a major reason as to why a peace process can fail. A peace process purely negotiated by a political elite that excludes grassroots activism faces drastic challenges to its implementation and success. For example, during the negotiations for peace in Bosnia, the federal nature of Bosnia created a two-tier system for victims of the genocide that was perpetrated there to access justice. This discrepancy was not noticed by the political elites of each federal government but in practice created two types of victims for the same crime depending on where you lived. Marie Berry exemplifies this phenomenon by expressing “Hierarchies of victimhood that have weakened women’s ability to engage in sustained collective action around their shared gender interests.”[17]. The failure of the political elite to create adequate structures for transitional justice to take place effectively has created an unequal assessment of what is a victim and in turn, women suffer. This has a detrimental effect of the success of the peace process as many victims feel they have not achieved justice or peace due to a judicial oversight that was missed by a political elite during the peace negotiations.

In conclusion, it is clear that the factors laid out in this essay are crucial in understanding why a peace process can fail despite the innate attractiveness and prosperity peace can bring to a state and its people. The intrusion of international actors, the exclusion of crucial aspects of society, such as women and LGBT+ minorities, and resistance from the old guard of the pre-conflict political order to the peace treaty are all elements outlined in this essay that are crucial for understanding the complex reasons as to why a peace process can fail. By understanding the reasons why a peace process can fail it means that, hopefully, future peace processes can avoid the mistakes of the past and create more successful peace processes and succeed in implementing transitional justice. By engaging a state’s society in the peace process and motivate both men and women, as well as other minorities into continued peace through genuine political and economic change that reduces the chances of future violence and removes the original factor that caused conflict in the first place

Bibliography

Bell, C. & McNiholl, K. ‘Principled Pragmatism and the ‘Inclusion Project’: Implementing a Gender Perspective in Peace Agreements’ feminist@law, 9 (2019) pp. 1-51

Cahn, N. & Haynes, D. & Ni Aolain, F. & Valji, N. The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Conflict (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018)

Cespedes, L. ‘Gender Panic and the Failure of a Peace Agreement’ Colombian Peace Talks and International Law, 110 (2017) pp. 183-187

Gale Academic OneFile, Adopting a Resistance Lens: An Exploration of Power and Legitimacy in Transitional Justice. Available at: https://go.gale.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&hitCount=20&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=5&docId=GALE%7CA546404826&docType=Essay&sort=RELEVANCE&contentSegment=ZONE-MOD1&prodId=AONE&pageNum=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA546404826&searchId=R1&userGroupName=uniaber&inPS=true [Accessed 07.12.2022]

Harders, C. ‘Gender Relations, Violence and Conflict Transformation’ Berghof Foundation, 50 (2011) pp. 132-151.

Maddison, S. Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation (London, Routledge, 2015)

SAGE Journals, Barriers to Women’s Progress After Atrocity: Evidence from Rwanda and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0891243217737060?journalCode=gasa [Accessed 07.12.2022]

SAGE Journals, Can we reconcile? Understanding the multi-level challenges of conflict transformation. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192512115607953 [Accessed 07. 12. 2022]

[1] SAGE Journals, Can we reconcile? Understanding the multi-level challenges of conflict transformation. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192512115607953 [Accessed 07. 12. 2022]

[2] Gale Academic OneFile, Adopting a Resistance Lens: An Exploration of Power and Legitimacy in Transitional Justice. Available at: https://go.gale.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&hitCount=20&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=5&docId=GALE%7CA546404826&docType=Essay&sort=RELEVANCE&contentSegment=ZONE-MOD1&prodId=AONE&pageNum=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA546404826&searchId=R1&userGroupName=uniaber&inPS=true [Accessed 07.12.2022]

[3] Gale Academic OneFile, Adopting a Resistance Lens: An Exploration of Power and Legitimacy in Transitional Justice. Available at: https://go.gale.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&hitCount=20&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=5&docId=GALE%7CA546404826&docType=Essay&sort=RELEVANCE&contentSegment=ZONE-MOD1&prodId=AONE&pageNum=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA546404826&searchId=R1&userGroupName=uniaber&inPS=true [Accessed 07.12.2022]

[4] Cahn, N. & Haynes, D. & Ni Aolain, F. & Valji, N. The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Conflict (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018) p. 109

[5] Cahn, N. & Haynes, D. & Ni Aolain, F. & Valji, N. The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Conflict (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018) p. 106

[6] Harders, C. ‘Gender Relations, Violence and Conflict Transformation’ Berghof Foundation, 50 (2011) p. 150

[7] SAGE Journals, Can we reconcile? Understanding the multi-level challenges of conflict transformation. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192512115607953 [Accessed 07.12.2022]

[8] Maddison, S. Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation (London, Routledge, 2015) p. 69

[9] Bell, C. & McNiholl, K. ‘Principled Pragmatism and the ‘Inclusion Project’: Implementing a Gender Perspective in Peace Agreements’ feminist@law, 9 (2019) p. 28

[10] Bell, C. & McNiholl, K. ‘Principled Pragmatism and the ‘Inclusion Project’: Implementing a Gender Perspective in Peace Agreements’ feminist@law, 9 (2019) p. 12

[11] Cahn, N. & Haynes, D. & Ni Aolain, F. & Valji, N. The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Conflict (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018) p. 492

[12] Cespedes, L. ‘Gender Panic and the Failure of a Peace Agreement’ Colombian Peace Talks and International Law, 110 (2017) p. 185

[13] Harders, C. ‘Gender Relations, Violence and Conflict Transformation’ Berghof Foundation, 50 (2011) p. 149

[14] Harders, C. ‘Gender Relations, Violence and Conflict Transformation’ Berghof Foundation, 50 (2011) p. 143

[15] Harders, C. ‘Gender Relations, Violence and Conflict Transformation’ Berghof Foundation, 50 (2011) p. 149

[16] Maddison, S. Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation (London, Routledge, 2015) p. 140

[17] SAGE Journals, Barriers to Women’s Progress After Atrocity: Evidence from Rwanda and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0891243217737060?journalCode=gasa [Accessed 07.12.2022