Peace talks are an intricate dance of steps — often choreographed by third-party mediators — among conflicting parties to gradually exchange war for peace. Lack of progress in negotiations generates powerful incentives for those at the table to use violence to enhance their bargaining positions and for opponents of the talks to try to scuttle the process altogether. For moderate political leaders suing for peace and third-party negotiators seeking to broker settlements, maintaining momentum and demonstrating progress are critical challenges.
Yet, it’s hard to imagine a peace process succeeding without the full engagement of all conflicting parties. As this week’s round of Syrian peace talks kicks off in Kazakhstan, some analysts are expressing cautious optimism that they will be different than previous rounds. This is because Russia and Turkey – the principal backers of the main belligerents – appear to have come into alignment.
However, the reality is that the Syrian conflict has become highly factionalized. The regime has little incentive to negotiate with a highly factionalized rebel force that has all but lost the war, and the rebels have no hope of receiving power-sharing concessions in return for negotiating with a heavily armed entity.
Furthermore, the complexities of the conflict in Burundi illustrate that not all conflicting parties are ready to enter into multiparty negotiations at the same time. For example, a group of Hutu rebel groups that were active in the civil war did not participate in the 1996 Arusha Accords for Rwanda, which provided for power-sharing and a transition to democracy.