Ceasefires: When Concepts Give Way to Practical Failures

A ceasefire is a temporary cessation of violence that does not settle the larger conflict but is intended as a step in that direction. In other words, it is not peace but an act that may or may not lead to peace. Therefore, from the very outset, the parties involved in such an agreement, and those that expect peace (i.e. International Community, Human Rights groups etc), must realize its unpredictable outcomes. If a Ceasefire has lost its characteristics, it is only natural that parties may resort to war to settle their differences. If indeed such characteristics have been compromised, pointing fingers at one party alone, for the failure of a Ceasefire, maybe counterproductive in the long run.

In theory, a Ceasefire may contain the following characteristics;

1. Overcome the polarizing effects of violence.
2. Establish a baseline of trust.
3. Create an opportunity to gain support of all stakeholders.

The first characteristic is conditional upon a strong political commitment and concerted leadership from BOTH sides. It is also conditional upon the interests and commitment of international players. Unfortunately in the case of Sri Lanka, such commitment and leadership was lacking in both the local and international arena.

Trust among adversaries is a difficult proposition. Rousseau states that “Trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another." Lewicki describe trust as "an individual's belief in, and willingness to act on the basis of, the words, actions, and decisions of another.

Trust builds along a continuum of hierarchical and sequential stages. These hierarchical and sequential stages of building trust can be upset by ‘Trust Violations’ resulting in ‘blame games’. Trust violations occur when the trustors’ (i.e., the victim's) confident positive expectations of the trustee (i.e., the offender) are disconfirmed.

Gaining the support of all stakeholders is also limited to theory. Whilst many stakeholders may support a Ceasefire, those left behind may become spoilers, or simply lose interest as political commitment, leadership and trust among parties fade.

The Ceasefire concept has a long way to go. In fact, Ceasefires often create more problems than solutions. Relying on Ceasefires without clear commitment from one or more sides to a conflict and without a baseline of trust is a difficult proposition. If a ceasefire loses its vital characteristics, then it should be abrogated. In popular culture, a Ceasefire is deemed the solution to the problem. Sometimes it can be seen as a problem on its own merit. A Ceasefire may become problematic when it is;

1. Subject to manipulation by one or all sides in a conflict.
2. Freeze, and thus legitimize power and resource inequities between adversaries and within their respective constituencies.
3. Allow time for warring parties to reconstitute their forces, possibly set the stage for a more destructive conflict in the future.

In Sri Lanka, the latter observation is more the reality. Parties who withdraw from a Ceasefire do so when they reach a position of relative strength over its opponent. In three previous occasions, it was the LTTE that withdrew from the Ceasefire. Now it is the government’s turn. Those who wish to blame or point fingers at the government must realize three things.

1. The Ceasefire concept is an abstract desiring much evidence to support continued adherence (except in limited cases like Northern Ireland).
2. It has not always overcome the polarization effects of violence, failed to establish a baseline of trust and failed to include both stakeholders and spoilers alike and
3. Provided undue advantage to parties to become stronger militarily.