Importance Of Ceasefire Agreement

The project uses a comparative approach and is divided into two parts: a comprehensive analysis of a larger number of cases aimed at systematically analysing the links between interim ceasefire agreements and comprehensive peace agreements; and three in-depth case studies on ceasefires in Burma, the Philippines (Mindanao) and Papua New Guinea (Bougainville). Ceasefires are available in different forms and lengths. They can be very local (Syria 2014), covering larger parts of a given territory (the Nuba Mountains in Sudan in 2002), applicable to an entire territory, but excluding certain parties to the conflict (Syria 2016) or throughout the country and without restrictions. Concrete examples are given in the following reading list. A lasting ceasefire agreement, as negotiated in 2002 in Sudan`s Nuba Mountains, will be built at least around the “4+2” areas. Practitioners and academics point out that agreements that combine as many of the following characteristics as possible are suitable for a more “simple” implementation and are therefore more likely to consider them. Among the four key areas are: the local audience of the event included many representatives from political parties and civil society. The leaders of the 88 generation, named after the student democratic movement that began in 1988 , responded to the invitation to testify to the agreement. Together with experienced political activist Ko Ko Gyi, they also sent a prominent Muslim member of the group, Ko Mya Aye, to sign the document – a politically courageous and far-sighted gesture in the current climate of bigotry. The author, a former combatant who served as an adviser to the peace talks in Abuja, examines the extent to which the security measures were treated only as a “technical matter”.

This document is a brilliant reminder that parties to the conflict may need considerable amounts of training and coaching to fully understand the practical impact of what they commit to do and, therefore, participate effectively in peace talks. The document contrasts with this practical requirement with the lack of strategic patience that increasingly characterizes international peacebuilding and diplomacy, with the pace and criteria of a determined ceasefire/peace process often dictated by international supporters and not by the parties themselves. Mari Fitzduff proposes that ceasefire agreements and peace processes take time to develop. Reading 3: Haysom, N. &Hottinger, J. (2004). Lasting ceasefire agreements. Presentation of IGAD Sudan Peace Process Workshops on detailed security measures in Sudan during the transition period. This publication is a classic “ceasefire reading”, written by experienced intermediaries. Originally produced for an East African audience, it has since been used for training in several other locations, including Nepal and Sri Lanka.

It should be noted that Julian Hottinger, Jeremy Brickhill (mentioned above) and Jan Erik Wilhelmsen are the palliators of the truce with the most important comparative expertise in this area of work. However, the importance and value of the signature should not be underestimated. This is the culmination of four years of tireless efforts and intense negotiations. The fifteen armed groups, including those that do not sign, have all approved the text. The agreement moves forward and makes the process more inclusive. It is not uncommon for peace processes to begin as partial agreements, and of course much remains to be done. It is also important to note that myanmar`s peace process is homemade, without international mediators – one of its greatest assets. Reading 6: Zaw Oo, M. (2014). Understanding the Myanmar Peace Process: Ceasefire Agreement. Catalyzing discussion paper 2. Bern: SwissPeace.

This reading package defines ceasefires as “agreements supported by third parties that define the rules and modalities for the parties to the conflict to stop the struggle.” However, in order to achieve a ceasefire, the parties to the conflict, mediators and third parties will in most cases go through an initial cessation of hostilities agreement. . . .

Comments are closed.