What is needed for a ceasefire? Unfortunately too often bloody battlefields Selenskyj: Fierce battles for positions and looting – the night update without photos

In late June, prominent Germans called for a ceasefire in Ukraine and peace talks with Vladimir Putin. Because the negotiations with Putin are anything but realistic, the philosophers and writers who signed the open letter were heavily criticized.

Since Alice Schwarzer had previously demanded the same, Ukrainian ambassador Andriy Melnyk scolded: “Not again, what a bunch of pseudo-intellectual losers.” And military expert Carlo Masala tweeted: “The next attempt by people new to international politics (with two exceptions) to demand things without offering solutions.”

Many reasons for a ceasefire

At this point, a ceasefire seems a long way off. Researchers from ETH Zurich, together with scientists from the Peace Research Institute in Oslo (Prio) and the University of Uppsala, have investigated what is needed for this. The study, published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, shows that there are many reasons for ceasefires and a number of conditions that simplify them. We looked at civil wars between 1989 and 2020. Civil wars because there were few conflicts between states during this period.

According to study leader Govinda Clayton of the Center for Security Studies (CSS) at ETH Zurich, the results apply not only to civil wars, but also to wars between states, although there are similarities and differences. In the case of wars between states, the implementation of a ceasefire is usually easier because the agreement is easier to monitor. In civil wars, several rebel groups often fight, which complicates implementation, says the conflict researcher from ETH Zurich.

Although a ceasefire usually does not solve the problem between the warring parties, it is an important step towards a later peace. 2,202 agreements concluded during 109 internal conflicts in 66 countries were examined.

And given the developments in Ukraine, one of the main conclusions is not encouraging. The parties to the conflict are therefore more willing to conclude a ceasefire if the war is particularly bloody, if a particularly large number of civilians have been killed. In South Sudan, for example, the parties to the conflict signed an agreement in June 2018, after the bloodiest weeks of the previous 12 months.

The chance of a ceasefire is greatest in the first month of the war

Another finding from the study was that the parties to the conflict often agree to lay down their arms in the first month of the war. However, less from insight than from tactical calculation. Because a ceasefire is used to gauge how serious the enemy is and whether there is any chance of a peaceful settlement. If the guns don’t shut up, the war will last an average of four years before the next ceasefire attempt.

An overthrow of the government could also promote a ceasefire. “The election of a new head of government shows that the population is dissatisfied with the current politics. A new person at the top is therefore better able to approach the opponents’, says Govinda Clayton. However, the effect of the regime change fades after a year. Government changes are possible through democratic elections or through the overthrow of the autocratic leader. Clayton considers a ceasefire more sustainable if political leadership is democratically replaced.

Political Justification and Religious Holidays

Intermediary parties can also help. These often give the parties to the conflict a political justification for laying down their arms. Religious holidays can also be a reason for a pause in the war, because the parties to the conflict do not lose face by agreeing to the ceasefire.

The conflict researchers have examples of this: In El Salvador, the National Liberation Front Farabundo Marti justified the ceasefire by making a concession to the mediator, the UN Secretary General. In 1989, the breaking of the fast after Ramadan led to several ceasefires in Afghanistan. There is less chance of a ceasefire in a civil war if the government is supported in fighting outside rebel groups with money and weapons.

However, the main reason for a ceasefire is the desire for peace, according to 70 percent of the agreements examined. A ceasefire agreement eventually brought peace to Colombia, as it did to Sudan. Laying down arms strengthens confidence in the government of the civil war country. A ceasefire with a rebel group also means that other parties to the civil war are more likely to agree to a peaceful respite.

However, the ceasefire is also often abused. “Conflicting parties use them to rearm themselves or to consolidate territorial control over an area,” Clayton said. In a fifth of the agreements, however, humanitarian reasons were decisive, such as the delivery of relief supplies or the recovery of dead people on the battlefield. In Syria, for example, local ceasefires in some places gave the beleaguered population a temporary respite. However, the Assad regime probably also used these agreements for strategic military purposes.

Minsk agreement to curb violence

In the case of Ukraine, a ceasefire has already been used as a means of resolving conflicts. The Minsk agreement between Russia and Ukraine, negotiated in 2015, aimed to curb violence in the Donetsk region without signing a peace treaty. By the time the Russians attacked in February, this agreement was obsolete.

Now a ceasefire in Ukraine should be part of an important political process that takes into account the realities on the battlefield. The two sides to the conflict will not agree a ceasefire until a certain point is reached where they can even reach a process of agreement. Clayton says a ceasefire is unlikely unless both sides agree on a political solution. (aargauerzeitung.ch)