(excerpt)

Crocker, Chester A., Fen Olser Hampson, and Pamela Aall. eds. Turbulent Peace. United States Institute of Peace: Washington D.C., 2001, pg. 490-494.

To purchase the full document from USIP click here.

Phase One: Defining the Problem and Deciding to Engage Phase one is a time when those involved in a conflict-citizens both in and out of government- decide whether they can allow a situation to continue as it is or whether to reach out to the other side.Deciding how to act on those decisions is likely to be more complicated and to take longer for those inside than those outside government.

Some individuals both in and out of government are ready to say, "Enough!" and to risk working toward a solution. Policymakers recognize that they cannot get what they want by unilateral action and decide to explore whether negotiation-an effort with the other side to find a joint solution-may be possible. But their exploration may often have to be made unilaterally, because the symbolism of talking with an enemy may make direct talk taboo. Citizens outside government, on the other hand, have more freedom to talk to people on the other side to get a firsthand feel for what may be possible. Learning what brings people to this conclusion is crucial.Often it is stark recognition that the costs of continuing conflict have already become too high.Or some individuals may be far-sighted enough to recognize that the consequences of continuation will become intolerable at some future point. Often individuals on the threshold of taking a step are reluctant or even fearful to reach out to the other side,with good reason. Some deny that a problem exists because they are not yet ready to face others' pain. Citizens in some situations risk assassination; governments risk vehement backlash; even in nonconflict situations, individuals are afraid to talk with people who they feel discriminate against them, do not care about them, or even hate or harm them.

Phase Two: Mapping Issues and Relationships In this phase, both officials and citizens design an exploration of possibilities on the other side, but each group moves differently. Officials must be able to stop at any time. They need to estimate the chances of success in order to build political support for a commitment to negotiate, but they may have to do this without serious discussion with the other side. Citizens, on the other hand, begin face-to-face dialogue to develop a firsthand picture of how issues and priorities are defined and begin to judge the possibilities of working together.

Phase Three: Generating the Will for a Joint Solution In this phase, individuals in each arena will probe the main issues more deeply and determine whether there is a will to deal with them. The aim is the same in and out of government, but each group will pursue it differently. If those in the public dialogue decide to work together in a new way, they will move into the work of stage four without having to justify their decision publicly. Officials, on the other hand,will often be meeting directly and intensively to write terms of reference for negotiation. From that experience, they will agree to begin negotiation or suspend the effort; either choice will be a public act for which they will be accountable.

Phase Four: Scenario Building and Negotiation Once parties have decided to work together toward a joint solution, citizens and officials will employ two different approaches, sustained dialogue and negotiation.They will also aim at two different but complementary products, each reflecting particular capacities and roles. Citizens will aim at a changed relationship that enables them to work together in agreed ways in the society at large.Officials will seek a formal, written agreement.

Phase Five: Acting Together to Implement Agreements Implementing agreements is often thought of as a series of actions to be taken. It is less often thought of as part of a long-term political process for changing relationships, in which negotiation is but one event. Paradoxically, in a continuing peace process that involves a sequence of negotiated agreements, implementation of one agreement may become part of preparing the political setting for the next, as faithful implementation builds confidence in the process and in the other party. It was particularly true in the Arab-Israeli peace process, for instance; each agreement in the early years was explicitly seen as but one step in a "step-by- step" process in which each agreement's implementation paved the way for the next. The history-making Camp David accords changed nothing on the ground, but they provided a framework for at least five more negotiations, which themselves would become part of the process of implementation by laying down new directions for implementation.These new directions would grow out of both the preparation for new negotiations and the work apart from negotiation that takes place in the public and civic arenas.