Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisions

Abstract

This article focuses on the dilemmas and trade-offs that third parties face when mediating violent political conflicts. Should they ignore human rights violations because pushing the issue could jeopardize relationships with political actors who grant access for humanitarian aid? Will bringing moderates and hardliners together help the peace process or radicalize moderate actors? What should dialogue facilitators do when the act of identifying non-mainstream groups to be included into dialogue increases division and polarization? The activity of peacemaking is inherently characterized by such process and strategy dilemmas where two equally compulsory imperatives seem not to be attainable at the same time. The article proposes a framework to break out of either-or thinking in these situations. We argue that: 1) making oneself aware of how a decision is perceived, and 2) systematically exploring a set of different strategies for creating new unexpected options helps to ease these decisions and avoid rotten compromises. The model reworks and combines existing problem-solving strategies to create a new explorative option generation approach to peacemaking dilemmas and trade-offs. Some of these strategies, such as sequencing and incrementalization, are already well-established in peacemaking. Others, such as compartmentalization and utilization, are rather unconsciously used. All identified strategies, however, are not yet systematically employed to manage third parties’ own dilemmas and trade-offs. Under the suggested framework, these strategies can act in complement to synthesize creativity and strategic thinking with surprising ease. Using examples from the authors’ peacemaking activities and observations in Myanmar, Thailand, and Ukraine, the article demonstrates the real-world benefits of the framework in terms of decision assessment and optional thinking.

Normen als Ordnungsrahmen der Friedensmediation

“…In beiden Fällen geraten zwei oder mehr Normen, deren Handlungsimperative situativ nicht vereinbar und nicht hierarchisierbar sind bzw. erscheinen, miteinander in Konflikt -oft weil die Normen aus verschiedenen Normen(sub)systemen mit unterschiedlichen übergeordneten Zielsetzungen stammen (Kraus et al 2019;Kraus 2011). So können zwischen dem mediationsmethodischen Ziel der Effektivität, dem mediationsethischen Ziel der Verfahrensgerechtigkeit und den rechtlichen Zielen der Rechtsgültigkeit und des Schutzes des Schwächeren grundlegende normative Zielkonflikte entstehen.…”

Political Trade-Offs: Democracy and Governance in a Changing World

“…In contrast, and more generally but focused on freedom and equality as well, Berlin's value pluralism claims that the "world…is one which we are faced with choices between ends equally ultimate, and claims equally absolute, the realization of some of which must inevitably involve the sacrifice of others" (Berlin, 1969, p. 168). Kraus et al (2019) specify their ideas of trade-offs in demarcation from dilemmas:…”

“…The research situation changes when not only facts, but their interpretation is decisive for the understanding of the relationship of tension. In this case, the question arises whether the interpretation can be changed or how Kraus et al (2019) formulate in their contribution can be re-framed. They comprehend this reframing from a cognitive constructivist point of view: Holding a cognitive constructivist point of view, we consider dilemmas and trade-offs as perception patterns created by reference frames such as ideas, practices, narratives, goals, values, emotions, and beliefs (Goffman, 1986;Lakoff & Wehling, 2016).…”

“…Thus, such a reframing strategy would ultimately lead to a postfactual view of facts that does not solve any problems. Finally, Kraus et al (2019) emphasise likewise the difficulty to change frames, which are inescapably linked to unconscious thinking habits, worldviews, existential experiences, and social identity.…”

“…Wiesner (2019) argues that it is not possible to achieve all three in the context of the EU, while her solution is to strengthen democratic and social standards while maintaining liberal trade orientation and reducing national sovereignty. Kraus et al (2019) examine peacemaking with a particular focus on third party interventions and the tradeoffs between human rights and the need to find agreement between contending political actors. Their conceptual framework seeks to transcend this binary trade-off through focussing on problem perception and strategy appraisals using the cases of peacemaking in Myanmar, Thailand, and Ukraine.…”