WordPress.com



MA GLOBAL AFFAIRS AND DIPLOMACY''THE CONCEPT OF RIPE MOMENT IMPLIES THAT THIRD PARTY CAN AND SHOULD ONLY INTERVENE AT CERTAIN POINT OF CONFLICT''CRITICALLY ANALYSE THE STATEMENT WITH REFERENCE TO SOME OF THE DIPLOLMATIC TOOLS DEPLOYED IN CONFLICT RESOLUTIONBRIGHT OWUSU GYASISRN: 1304177COURSE TUTOR: PROF. ABDEL-ILAH BENNISWhile most studies on the peaceful settlement of disputes focus on the substance of negotiations, the timing of the negotiations is also key. Parties resolve their conflict only when they are ready to do so. When alternative, usually unilateral, means of achieving satisfactory results are blocked, and the parties feel that they are in an uncomfortable and costly predicament; at that ''ripe moment'' they seek or are amenable to proposals that offers ''a way out''.This essay seeks to critically analyse the statement: ''The concept of 'Ripe Moment' implies that 'Third Party' can and should only intervene at a certain point of conflict'', with reference to some of the diplomatic tools deployed in conflict resolution. In the light of this, this work has been divided into three main sections. The first part provides an introduction to the background and outlines the key concept. The second part critically analyses the statement: ''The concept of ripe moment implies that third party can and should only intervene at a certain point of conflict'', which informs my final conclusion.According to Kissinger H, the idea of 'Ripe Moment' is relevant for 'Third Party' Mediators, or Negotiators, citing 'stalemate' as the most auspicious condition for 'Third Party Intervention' Most Mediation processes fail because of improper timing. Mediation efforts may not be necessary when conflict is not yet 'Ripe'. Susskind L, concurs with Kissinger H, and elaborates on the significance of conflict evaluation before 'Negotiation' or 'Mediation' thus an effort to assess the ripeness and to outline the process. In instances where one party to conflict refuse to come to the mediation table then that conflict is not ready for 'Negotiation' or 'Mediation'. The theory of a 'Ripe Moment' is highly dependent on the parties' appreciation of jointly damaging a 'Stalemate'. This is a situation where neither side can win and continues the effect of conflict hurts each other. Such a situation encourages the disputing parties to seek for 'Way Out'.Zartman W, asserts that, 'Ripeness' is only a single condition, essential but enough, for the commencement of Negotiations; it is not self-fulfilling, and must be worked for either directly or indirectly by the 'Third Party', or alternatively through a Mediator. I concur with Zartman W, because the theory in itself is not synonymous to the results, and also cannot be quantified until the success of the process, after which it could be described that the time was 'Ripe'. Critical analysis of conflict will have be carried out to determine when Third Parties can productively commence 'Negotiations' or 'Mediations'. Detecting a 'Ripe Moment' requires for research to review the aims and intuitive component. Therefore, the relative quantity of pain, deadlock, costs accumulated and impending escalations, data on the number of properties damage, casualties and other such relevant indicators. These are the factors that will have to be taken into consideration before one could conclude that the conflict is 'Ripe'.The Conflict Research Consortium of the University of Colorado poses the theory that the timing of 'Mediation' and 'Negotiation' (intervention) is crucial for the success of it. This is because it provides the appropriate opportunity for settlement of disputes. They likened the idea of Negotiation and Mediation at 'Ripe Moment' to fruit, arguing that, if a fruit is picked too early, it will not be appropriate for consumption, however, if it is picked too late, it will be unpalatable for consumption. 'Negotiation' and 'Mediation' works in a similar manner: conflict must advance to a period where 'Mediation' and 'Negotiation' is possible, yet, if that 'Ripe Moment' is missed, the dispute may not be ready for mediation again until a 'Ripe Moment' resurfaces. I concur with thoughts put forward by the Conflict Research Consortium because the 'Ripe Moment' is the most appropriate time for third party interventions in conflicts, and is usually the time when it is possible for parties in disputes see that there are no fruitful efforts through violence because of the fear of other possible future escalations through their continued conflicts. It is at this moment they will require the services of a 'Third Party Mediator' to bring about a 'Way out'.Zartman H, further puts forward that, a 'Third Party' can, in theory, instigate 'Ripe Moments' through the construction of damaging Deadlocks. They could initiate the concept, especially, when there are devastating effects from the conflict, surveys concerning property lost and cost could be evaluated to initiate the 'Ripe Moment'. Dean G, however, outlines two specific conditions that are necessary, though not sufficient, for the 'Ripe Moment':1. Mutually hurting Stalemate. Both sides realise they are in costly deadlock that they cannot escape by escalating the conflict. Such a stalemate is especially motivating if augmented by recent impending catastrophe.2. A mutually perceived way out. Both sides foresee that ''a Negotiated Solution is Possible'' that a formula can be found that is just satisfactory to both parties.He advances his arguments by asserting that: the significance of this approach is demonstrated by the 1993 Oslo negotiations, and lead to the formulation of the self-government legitimacy of Palestine. Dean G explains that, both parties were going through a painful 'Stalemate'. Israel could not 'Reach out' the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), which was far away in Tunis. Notwithstanding this, the PLO at the time became both economically and politically weak, due to the breakdown of the Soviet Union. This in reality made them handicapped to embark on any productive crusade against Israel. Israel once again had its fair share of the Stalemate through cost accumulation. Zartman H, Alvaro S, and Bennin A, concurs with Dean G, and puts forward the idea of the 'Ripe Moment' centres on the disputing parties' appreciation of a 'Mutually Hurting Stalemate', and is ideally associated with an outstanding, past, or present, catastrophe. When disputing parties find themselves chained in a dispute that none of them could clamp on to, 'Victory' and the 'Stalemate' are harmful to both parties. This is when they will seek for a 'Way Out', and is when Third Party Mediators can intervene. I concur with the account given by Zartman H and Alvaro S, because the 'Ripe Moment' is the best time for Third Party Mediators to act. At this stage, conflict becomes fertile for negotiations because it becomes very difficult for both parties due to the devastating effects of the conflict to them. It is undeniably the right moment for 'Third Party Intervention'. The 'Ripe Moment' makes available an alternative policy of settlement. The deadlock is an indication of an impending pain that might increase if the conflict is not negotiated at that moment and in turn, makes it a perfect opportunity for 'Third Party Intervention'. Third Party Mediation cannot be initiated at just any time of conflict, which must be naturally 'Ripe' for the commencement of 'Mediation'. This is largely because disputing parties resolve their conflict only when they feel to, especially when the disputing parties are trapped in an unbearable and immoderate situation.Zartman H, and Alvaro S, argues that 'Ripe Moments' are the appropriate timing for 'Third Party Interventions'. Any other time apart from this moment will result in an unsuccessful 'Mediation'. They both put forward steps Negotiators use to identify 'Ripe Moments' to promote the disputing parties appreciation of 'Ripeness', and to ripen the conflict. According to Zartman H, and Alvaro S, Third Party Mediators should assess whether there is 'Mutually Hurting Deadlock's, and if one does exist: What is the negative impact of that on the disputing parties? Again, Third Party Negotiators should analyse the disputing parties appreciation of the of a 'Way Out', and should also carry out an enquiry report on the damage caused, impending damages, pain, as well as the rising cost of the entire conflict. These efforts will aid third parties to know better when the 'Ripe' Moment' is for them to intervene.'Ripe Moments' have been identified with many successful disputes, which goes to support the claims that 'Third Party Intervention' can best be done at the 'Ripe Moment'. Zartman H and Bennin A, in support of this claim, cited the negotiations that lead to an agreement in Mozambique in 1992, Sinai in 1974, Southwest Africa in 1988, and El Salvador in. Nevertheless, the lack of 'Negotiators' and 'Mediator's' ability to identify the 'Ripe Moment' in the Eritrea and Ethiopia conflict in the late 1980s lead to the failure of the mediation process at the time, and goes a long way to confirm the significance of 'Ripe Moment' for 'Third Party Intervention'. According to Bennin A, there is no other time for 'Third Party Intervention' than the right time which is the 'Ripe Moment'Fisher R concurs with Zartman W, and also theorises that disputed parties are more likely to allow Third Party Intervention only after they have exhausted themselves, to the point of an expensive 'Hurting Stalemate'. Zartman H, proposes that the 'Ripe Moment' is the perfect time for third party intervention, because at this time of conflict, there is an over whelming evidence of damage caused. This is however, supported by the fact, 'Third Party Intervention' is most likely to be more successful at a later time, rather than earlier stages of conflict escalation.The possibility for successful negotiations and mediation are determined by several environmental factors of conflict, including: the disputed parties, the issue of contention, the period of and the phase of the conflict, and most importantly the availability of 'Mutually Painful Deadlock'. At this moment, parties will need the services of a 'Third Party Intervention' to find a 'Way Out', and that is why it is imperative that 'Third Parties' intervene only; and only at this moment if really they seek to achieve success in their 'Mediation' or 'Negotiation' efforts.In conclusion, and according to 'Mediation Theory', the 'Ripe Moment' is a crucial determinant of success for 'Third Party Intervention'. Henry Kissinger failed in his attempt to mediate the Rhodesian conflict of 1976 because at the time, the conflict was not 'Ripe'. In addition, the United Nations led by it General Secretary, Kurt Waldheim, and the American government led by Jimmy Carter, in 1979, during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, failed with many negotiated attempts. This is because, at those moments the conflicts was not 'Ripe', which also goes to confirm the assertion made by Zartman H: 'Negotiations' are best successful at later stage than the early stage. The Iranian Hostage Crises took a period of about 200 days for the conflict to become 'Ripe', at the moment when both the American and Iranian governments were tired of the crises. Iran was hurting badly due the due to a sanction imposed on them by the American government, through the freezing of assets. Iran had its own parliament at the time, and the country was at war with Iraq, made possible through financial support from the United States government. The American hostages had been held for such a long period, with pressure continuously mounted on the Iranian government on daily basis. These two countries eventually realised the 'Mutually Hurting Stalemate', and finally decided to accept the Algerian 'Mediators' led by Foreign Minister Warren Christopher. This mediation process eventually brought about the popular Algiers Accord, which finally brought an end to the Iranian hostage crises on January 19, 1981. I affirm the statement: "The concept of the Ripe Moment implies that Third Party can and should only intervene at a certain point of conflict". This is because there was about twenty to thirty different failed negotiated or mediated attempt by 'States' and individuals (good offices), namely the French, Germans, Argentineans; including the good offices of the former UN Secretary General, Waldheim, Mohamed Ali, Hector Villalon, Christian Bourget, Sadegh Ghotbzadeth, Cyrus Vance (representing the Iranian Foreign Ministry) respectfully, which all failed in their respective attempt to mediate the crises. This was because it was not the right moment as the conflict was not 'Ripe', even though the American government was hurting between all the periods of the failed attempted mediations. The Iranians stood strong on their position because they needed the hostages mostly for political reasons. They used the period to hold their country together by instilling into the Iranian people the sense of nationalism as they undergo transition. One can see clearly that once this transition was over, there came a 'Mutually Hurting Stalemate', as they needed money to run the government they had put in place, and also finance for the war against Iraq. This 'Mutually Hurting Stalemate' created the 'Ripe Moment', which eventually brought about the popular Algiers accord. Reference1. William Zartman, Ripeness, [online]. (2013). Available from: <;. [Accessed 19.05.2015].2. Kissinger H, cited in, William Zartman, Ripeness, [online]. (2013). Available from: <;. [Accessed 19.05.2015].3. Susskind L, cited in, William Zartman, Ripeness, [online]. (2013). Available from: <;. [Accessed 19.05.2015].4. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Good Timing--Identifying "Ripe" Times for Negotiations, USA, [online]. (2005). 5. Zartman H, cited in, David Carment [online]. (2000). Available from: <;. [Accessed 19.05.2014].6. Alvaro De Soto, Timing Mediation Initiatives [online]. (2003). Available from: < Mediation Initiatives.pdf>. [Accessed 19.05.2014].7. William Z, ‘Ripeness’: the importance of timing in negotiation and conflict resolution [online]. (2008). Available from: <;. [Accessed 20.05.2013].8. Fisher J, Method of Third Party Intervention [online]. (2003). Available from: <;. [Accessed 20.05.05].9. Carl Watts, "Ripe for settlement? Kissinger’s Attempted Mediation of the Rhodesian Conflict.” [Online]. (2004). Available from: <;. [Accessed 20.05.2014].10. Dean Whither Ripeness Theory? [Online]. (2005). Available from: <;. [Accessed 22.05.2014]. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download