Peace process: Breaking the deadlock



One evening more than 30 years ago, when I got back home, I asked my wife what we had for dinner. She said fish and I was happy because one of the meals I have always enjoyed is rice with fish. But then I found out that there was only one fish and not a very big one at that. If I was to have my way, my wife would end up eating her rice with a sprinkle of fish and if we agreed to go half, I would not be eating much either, as a fish head is something that I have never liked.

Fortunately, I had no chance to express my feelings because my wife said, “Would you mind giving me your share of the head and I give you my share of the rest?” And I was surprised, because we had been married for only a few months and I wasn’t sure whether she was joking or just doing me a favor. She explained when I looked at her questioningly, “You see, I have always loved eating fish head. I never care for the rest of them.”

Since then, there has been an unsigned agreement between her and myself. When it comes to fish: She eats the head and I the rest. Had we insisted on the position that we went half, we wouldn’t be having such a happy arrangement.

That was what I thought when one of the researchers  who had attended the 22-26 September negotiations between the rebels’ Nationwide Ceasefire Coordination Team (NCCT) and the government’s Union Peacemaking Work Committee (UPWC).  Both were focusing too much on positions than interests.

The situation is such the President was said to have given a deadline: Finalization of the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) draft by 30 October or he’ll have to consider “Plan B.”

Positions taken include:
  • ·       Demarcation of ceasefire territory (which is a UPWC proposal. “Does it mean we keep on fighting outside it?” asked an NCCT official)
  • ·       Replacing of DDR (Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration) before political settlement instead of after, as agreed earlier by the UPWC. (I have yet to hear the NCCT asking why the UPWC had a sudden change of mind)
  • ·       The UPWC also had another change of mind. Previously it had agreed that the NCA would be ratified by the union legislature. But now it is suggesting “submission of the NCA to the union legislature for ratification” instead, as earlier wording could have been considered too presumptuous by the legislature. Again I have yet to hear how then we can be sure that it will be ratified despite using an unassuming wording.

All in all, I would venture that instead of each side holding to its positions (or rather its chosen wordings) they try to explain what their interests or concerns are. Then they are more likely to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.

After all, since both sides have agreed to uphold the government’s long trumpeted Three Causes: Non-disintegration of the Union, Non-disintegration of national solidarity and Perpetuation of national sovereignty, the rest should be considered, particularly by the government, as a walk in the park and not one on a tightrope.





 

Allwebsitetools © 2014 Shan Herald Agency for News All Rights Reserved