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.
Tags: Opinion
