Channels, Fall 2018

Channels • 2018 • Volume 3 • Number 1 Page 39 process, the negotiations address the central issues in dispute, the negotiators do not use force to achieve their objectives, and the negotiators are committed to a sustained process. Within these criteria, there are plenty of roles that third-party actors can play in the peace process (Mac Ginty, & Darby 2002). In their book Herding Cats: Multiparty Mediation in a Complex World, Crocker, Hampson, and Aall discuss two basic paradigms that are used when discussing third-party mediation. These paradigms are the structuralist and the social-psychological. The structuralist paradigm is held by those who have a rational view of the world. The mediators in this paradigm are very active in the negotiation process. They coax the participants to the negotiating table through a method of “carrots” and “sticks.” Essentially, in this paradigm the third-party mediators lead the parties to the conflict through the negotiation process. The idea of “ripeness” is very important to the structuralist paradigm. Essentially, ripeness is the idea that timing is important to peace processes. For example, if war weariness has settled in and people are tired of the conflict, third-party mediators may have an easier time leading parties involved in a conflict to the negotiating table (Crocker et al., 1999). In contrast, the social-psychological paradigm has the third-party actors playing a much less involved role. This paradigm focuses heavily on the communication aspect of peace processes. In this paradigm, third-party actors facilitate communication. They provide forums for the conflicting parties to dialogue with each other. This school of thought holds a much less realist view of the world than the structuralist school; the social-psychological paradigm sees conflict as subjective. Because of this, it is important to understand the perspective that both sides of the conflict have. In this approach, the third-party mediators’ job is simply to facilitate the negotiations to help both sides better understand one another, which is a goal they often accomplish through the hosting of workshops. This school of thought allows the parties of the conflict to have total ownership over whatever peace process occurs. Unlike in the structuralist approach, the third-party actors are not leading the parties through the negotiations (Crocker et al., 1999). The idea of “ripeness”, as discussed in the structuralist paradigm, is well illustrated by the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement ended twenty-five years of violence and eight centuries of conflict in Northern Ireland (Mac Ginty, & Darby 2002). After eight centuries of conflict, many people living in Northern Ireland were ready for peace. Often peace processes take place when the idea of continuing with violence is unthinkable. Sadly, as in the case of Northern Ireland, getting to this place can take centuries. The background to this conflict is complex. Northern Ireland has a Protestant majority and a Catholic minority. (See Figure 1) These two groups of people tended to see the conflict through different lenses. The Protestants largely tended to view it in constitutional and security terms. Their main goal for any peace deal was to preserve Northern Ireland’s relationship with Great Britain (See Figure 2). In contrast, Catholics viewed it either an issue of nationalist struggle for self-determination or as a problem of corruption or unfair practices by Unionist governments (Mac Ginty, & Darby 2002). Although this conflict stretches back for centuries, for the purpose of this discussion, 1921 is a good place to start. In 1921, the island of Ireland was divided. The southern twenty-six