Peace talks often encounter challenges such as information asymmetry, commitment problems, and cross-border risks. These challenges are a consequence of structural conditions, but they also reflect choices made by negotiating actors. The choice of the negotiation framework is a key factor in this regard. It determines whether and how the government communicates about the process to the public, sets legal boundaries, and determines who should participate as participants in the negotiations (see for example the Colombia and Turkey cases).
When serious negotiations are undertaken, both parties want to demonstrate their strength by highlighting the other’s weaknesses. In turn, this makes it difficult to compel the other side to accept compromises.
Nevertheless, it is possible to achieve durable peace through multilateral negotiations that take into account the views and interests of both parties. Such processes are likely to have a higher chance of success when they are accompanied by multiple mediation efforts facilitated by different organisations. However, this should be done with care in order to avoid a fragmented approach and unhelpful competition between different regional and international actors.
It is also important for peace mediators to build trust and listen to grievances. They do this by taking steps such as ensuring transparency and the inclusion of civil society. Contrary to common understanding, peace mediators don’t necessarily need to be neutral and unbiased; they can have a political background such as that of the late Burkina Faso president Blaise Compaore, who mediated the Cote d’Ivoire conflict with the rebel Forces Nouvelles.