Ceasefire Agreements and Peace Processes

A Comparative Study

Malin Akebo

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781317204121
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Asian History
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book analyses and compares ceasefire agreements as part of peace processes in intrastate armed conflicts.

Research repeatedly underscores the importance of ceasefire agreements in peace processes but suggests that they can influence such processes in fundamentally different ways. However, despite contradictory expectations, remarkably few studies have so far been devoted to systematic and in-depth analysis of ceasefire agreements in contemporary intrastate armed conflicts. This book contributes to filling this gap by using a process-oriented conflict dynamics approach to analyse and explain how ceasefire agreements are being influenced by and in turn influences the broader dynamics of peace processes. Empirically, the book focuses on the armed conflicts in Aceh (Indonesia) and Sri Lanka. Based on document studies and 57 interviews with key actors, it presents comparative insights and in-depth knowledge about ceasefire agreements in different contextual settings. The book problematizes the common assumption in the literature that ceasefire agreements create momentum in peace processes and pave the way to peace, and it provides a more nuanced analysis and understanding based on two empirical cases analysed within a comparative framework. In contrast to conventional wisdom, it demonstrates how ceasefires on the contrary also can have negative implications on peace processes.

This book will be of much interest to students of conflict resolution, peace studies, intra-state conflict, security studies and IR in general.

1 Ceasefire agreements in contemporary peace processes

For a student of peace and conflict studies in the mid-2000s, the Sri Lankan peace process appeared to be a textbook example of conflict resolution. A ceasefire agreement had been in place for more than four years and this is often seen as a natural beginning of a peace process aimed at creating momentum and paving the way to peace. However, when I visited Sri Lanka in the spring of 2006 there were few signs of progress toward finding a peaceful solution to the conflict. The presence of violence was once again a tangible feature in the everyday lives of the people, and in the political discourse the failing ceasefire was being used to legitimize a return to war. Indeed, the ceasefire agreement had seemingly become ensnared in the conflict dynamics. The experiences from this trip prompted me to question prior assumptions and triggered me into deeper thinking about the complexities and challenges of war-to-peace transitions. In contrast to conventional wisdom, in this book I demonstrate how ceasefires can also have negative implications on peace processes.

In recent decades there has been a dramatic increase in peace processes aimed at finding negotiated settlements to armed conflicts. Around the globe, belligerents have agreed to end violence, engaged directly in talks and explored political solutions to their conflicts. Evidence of this trend can be seen in the large number of agreements that have been concluded between warring parties over recent decades, including some 441 agreements dealing with 73 conflicts since 1990 (Bell, 2008: 210). Data on conflict termination also demonstrates this pattern. While only 10 per cent of armed conflicts were ended through negotiated settlements during the Cold War, since then the figure has risen to 38 per cent (Kreutz, 2010).¹ Indeed, the many peace processes that have occurred and the numerous peace agreements reached have been described as a central characteristic of the post-Cold War international scene (e.g. Themnér and Wallensteen, 2012).

While such accounts are encouraging, the empirical record is nevertheless ambiguous. Although there has been an increase in the number of peace processes, the durability of negotiated settlements reveals a troublesome record of failed peace accords and conflicting parties returning to war. Of all the conflicts that were settled with peace agreements between 1989 and 2005, a full 40 per cent experienced a return to violence within five years (Harbom, Högbladh and Wallensteen, 2006). Indeed, as Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall (2016: 200) put it, ‘a pattern of multiple agreements, most of which fail, is the norm’. The many protracted conflicts, fragile peace processes and precarious settlements thus serve as a reminder that the challenges of war-to-peace transitions are widespread and enduring. This inevitably raises the fundamental and central question of peace and conflict: What is it that leads belligerents to abandon lethal warfare and instead continue to disagree with one another without resorting to violence? Improving our understanding of the complex processes that operate in transitions from war to peace is vital to research on peace and conflict. This book contributes to that overarching objective by taking a closer look at the processes at play when warring parties agree to refrain from the use of violence and engage in new forms of interaction, even if it is only for a limited period of time. More specifically, it focuses on one of the most crucial steps and central components of contemporary peace processes: ceasefire agreements.

The importance of establishing a ceasefire agreement in the midst of an armed conflict can be easily motivated by humanitarian concerns – with thousands of people dying each year as a result of armed violence it is indeed of central concern to find an end to the killing. But a ceasefire agreement does not necessarily mean a resolution of the conflict. In this book I argue that a more theoretically valid understanding of ceasefire agreements is needed and that these agreements become particularly interesting if we analyse them as part of peace processes. Peace processes can be succinctly described as structured initiatives aimed at enabling a transition from war to peace through engaging in peaceful means and procedures.² In general, this includes a shift from primarily violent to non-violent forms of interaction and implies that actors directly involved in violent conflicts for a period of time participate in formalized engagements and reach mutual agreements. While all peace processes have their distinctive structures and dynamics, scholars have pointed to a number of similarities among contemporary peace processes in intrastate conflicts. References have been made to a ‘common approach’ or ‘standard formula’ that is characterized by ceasefire agreements, direct negotiations between the main warring parties, international mediation and more substantive accords on political accommodation, often including demilitarization, elections and the building of democratic institutions (e.g. Bell, 2006, 2008; Clapham, 1998; Daley, 2006; Darby and Rae, 1999). Since most of today’s armed conflicts take place within states and the main warring parties are states and non-state group(s), the conflicts can largely be characterized by their asymmetrical structure as regards the parties’ size, resources and legitimacy in the international system. This makes power relations a central component of the conflicts and an aspect that can be expected to influence any peace initiative being introduced.

Among the various initiatives that are part of contemporary peace processes, ceasefire agreements can thus be described as a common and often central initiative. A ceasefire is frequently put forth as a minimum precondition for one or both warring parties to engage in negotiations (Mac Ginty, 2006). In the scholarly literature, it has been emphasized that ceasefire agreements are often initiated in the early phases of peace processes in order to reach a cessation of hostilities and establish momentum for further talks (e.g. Tonge, 2014; Darby and Mac Ginty, 2008; Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall, 2005). However, ceasefire agreements can vary greatly in terms of actors involved, form and procedure, scope and content and how and to what extent they are implemented. The agreements can differ in level of detail as well as in degree of external support, and the conflicting parties can choose to engage for different reasons. In essence, the core premise of a ceasefire agreement is that the conflicting parties agree to stop fighting, but an agreement also defines the rules and modalities for such an endeavour. As this implies, beyond the core component of the cessation of violent action, the attributes of agreements can vary across different peace processes and conflict settings. In addition to security-related issues, ceasefire agreements, to varying degrees, can also include features that address humanitarian concerns, development-related issues and political incompatibilities. Thus, as Mac Ginty (2006: 111) puts it, a ceasefire can potentially be used as ‘something more than a negotiating-enabling stopgap in violent conflicts’. Because they have this potential, ceasefires have been described as perhaps the most visible ‘signpost’ along the war-to-peace trajectory (Smith, 1995: 3), indicating the beginning of something new and an opportunity to pave the way for further peaceful engagement (Smith, 1995; Wallensteen, 2015a; Smith, 2003). Thus, there is a general underlying assumption that ceasefire agreements create momentum in peace processes.

At the same time, empirical experiences indicate that peace processes are fragile. Many ceasefire agreements are abandoned within the first few months and followed by a return to fully fledged fighting. Other agreements formally last longer but in practice the agreements linger on, more or less ineffective, while hostilities continue to rage. Some conflicts thus seem to ‘freeze’ into what is sometimes described as a ‘no war, no peace’ situation (Mac Ginty, 2006). While ceasefire agreements are often assumed to constitute ‘an integral step on the path to peace’ (Kolås, 2011: 781) scholars have also suggested that ceasefire agreements in intrastate armed conflicts can have a significant negative influence on conflict dynamics and thus might contribute to sustaining or even aggravating violent conflicts (Kolås, 2011; Clapham; 1998). As a result, research has pointed to the significance of ceasefire agreements, but also suggested that they can influence conflicts in fundamentally different ways. This underlines the importance of looking at ceasefire agreements in greater detail and more systematically in relation to the broader dynamics of intrastate peace processes. How does a ceasefire agreement contribute to changes in conflicting parties’ attitudes, behaviours and relationships? How and why do the terms and attributes of ceasefires vary among different peace processes? Does this variation matter as regards how ceasefire agreements can be characterized and analysed in relation to peace processes?

This book seeks to contribute to our understanding of war-to-peace transitions by analysing ceasefire agreements in relation to peace processes in protracted intrastate armed conflicts. The book develops a theoretical and analytical framework to guide systematic empirical exploration and analysis of ceasefire agreements as part of peace processes. Building on Galtung’s (1969) conflict theory, the point of departure in the study is a conflict dynamics approach and a conviction that transitions from war to peace require changes in the conflicting parties’ attitudes, behaviours and relationships.³ This approach rests on an assumption that the core elements of the conflict – i.e. the conflicting parties’ attitudes, behaviours and relationships – are mutually reinforcing and that changes might lead the conflict in a particular direction; either freezing in a status quo, derailing in resumed armed conflict, or proceeding in peaceful change. Following on from this, I conduct a comprehensive study that takes into account relational, internal and external factors to help analyse how ceasefire agreements can be understood as being influenced by, and influencing, the dynamics of peace processes. I identify six sets of factors from the literature on war-to-peace transitions that can be expected to influence changes in the conflicting parties’ attitudes, behaviours and relationships. This includes (1) recognition, status and legitimacy, (2) trust and confidence, (3) whether or not claims are being met, (4) external incentives and resources, (5) contextual changes and (6) intraparty dynamics. These six general factors will serve as links, or mediating factors, to explore and analyse ceasefire agreements in relation to the broader dynamics of peace processes.

The book is positioned within a comparative peace and conflict research tradition. Empirically, it focuses on the armed conflicts in Aceh between the Government of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka; GAM) and in Sri Lanka between the government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).⁴ These are two intrastate conflicts with a territorial dimension insofar as they involve a demand for self-determination within a geographically defined region within a state. Furthermore, they are both cases of protracted conflicts that have shown a pattern of recurring ceasefire agreements and peace processes. These types of conflicts relating to control over territory can often be traced back to failed state-building and nation-building projects that have led to severe grievances and identity politics characterized by competing nationalisms striving for power and recognition. As Huber (2004: 5) puts it, ‘these conflicts are bedevilled not just by potent grievances and symbolic issues, but also by the all-or-nothing nature of the contest by both sides for the same territory’. This means that intrastate territorial conflicts are often particularly protracted and difficult to resolve, and characterized by challenging and complex war-to-peace transition efforts (Wallensteen, 2007; Human Security Centre, 2006). The conflicts in Aceh and Sri Lanka have been selected based on theoretical, empirical and practical grounds which I will elaborate upon further in Chapter 2. In these two conflict settings I study and compare ceasefire agreements by systematically analysing: (1) initiation and who was responsible for initiating them; (2) form and content; and (3) implementation and unfolding of the processes. This examination is guided by an analytical framework developed to capture central attributes and characteristics of ceasefire agreements with regard to their initiation, form and content and implementation. I use the six key factors identified as potentially influential for changing the attitudes, behaviours and relationships of conflicting parties in peace processes in general, and for the purpose of exploring how they play out in the initiation and evolution of ceasefire agreements in particular. By doing this I am able to analyse and explain how the ceasefire agreements have been influenced by, and in turn influenced, the dynamics of the broader peace process.

The book addresses three overarching research questions: First, what is the nature of ceasefire agreements in the conflicts in Aceh and Sri Lanka in terms of their initiation, form and content and implementation? Second, how can ceasefire agreements be characterized and analysed in relation to peace processes in these two protracted intrastate armed conflicts? For instance, do they contribute to changing the conflicting parties’ attitudes, behaviours and relationships? Third, what similarities and differences that can be identified between the empirical cases can increase our understanding of ceasefire agreements in relation to peace processes and of war-to-peace transitions in intrastate protracted conflicts?

Empirically, the book makes a contribution by improving our understanding of how ceasefire agreements can be characterized in relation to peace processes by analysing the warring parties’ attitudes, behaviours and relationships in the intrastate armed conflicts in Aceh and Sri Lanka. In both of these conflicts, there have been multiple peace processes in which ceasefires have been reached. This means that each case provides us with several observations, and we can compare both over time and across conflict settings. In this study, I analyse and compare three peace processes and ceasefire agreements in Aceh and two in Sri Lanka. Based on document studies and several interviews conducted with key persons, the book provides an in-depth analysis and understanding of ceasefire agreements as part of peace processes in these two conflict settings.

Theoretically, the conclusions drawn from the comparative analysis contribute to advancing our general understanding of war-to-peace transitions. In addition they help increase our knowledge about how the particular initiatives that are part of these processes operate and the interplay between them. While there are several factors that together can help explain the dynamics and outcome of a peace process, I argue that the ceasefire is a crucial aspect that has largely been overlooked in the literature. This book remedies the lack of research and knowledge by critically analysing how a ceasefire agreement can be characterized and analysed in relation to the dynamics of the broader peace process. In doing so, I assess and problematize the common assumption in the literature that ceasefire agreements create momentum in peace processes and pave the way to peace, and I provide a more nuanced analysis and understanding based on two empirical cases analysed within a comparative framework. This entails addressing a number of important issues related to war-to-peace transitions in contemporary intrastate conflicts, including the timing and sequencing of initiatives in peace processes, agency and inclusiveness, the importance of previous experience of engaging in peace processes and the impact of external influences.

While ceasefire agreements often are regarded simply as a means for putting an end to fighting and enabling a dialogue process, my findings support the notion that ceasefire agreements can have significant negative impact on the broader dynamics of peace processes. I suggest how by particularly pointing to the symbolic politics of ceasefire agreements in asymmetrical intrastate conflicts; how ceasefire agreements can be understood as accepting a particular on-the-ground reality; fallacies in the sequencing of peace processes as regards to ceasefire agreements; and the influence of ceasefire agreements on intraparty dynamics. Furthermore, the process-oriented approach reveals how the influence of various factors might shift between different phases of a process.

The book also offers a number of propositions, among others that ceasefire agreements tend to become more comprehensive over time in terms of being more substantial, to include a larger amount of undertakings, and that their terms and provisions tend to be outlined in greater detail. I also suggest that some factors seem particularly important for understanding the nature of ceasefire agreements, how they operate and unfold and why this is so, including issues related to power struggles and developments within the conflicting parties. I also propose that if a ceasefire agreement is to create a momentum that helps lead the process onto a peaceful path, then this momentum must generate a political space. In order to contribute to generating political space, I argue that a ceasefire needs to be action-oriented and accompanied by an adoption of...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• 1 Ceasefire agreements in contemporary peace processes
• 2 Theorizing ceasefire agreements in relation to peace processes
• 3 Ceasefire agreements in Aceh’s peace processes
• 4 Ceasefire agreements in Sri Lanka’s peace processes
• 5 Comparative insights
• 6 Conclusion
• Appendix: list of interviews; agreements
• Index