Ending violent ethnic conflicts: Separation or sharing as options for negotiation

Abstract

Conflict‐management strategies frequently prove unsuccessful in protracted ethnic conflicts. A principle reason is that communal leaders, armed with irreconcilable agendas, prefer avoiding real negotiations, unless they promise to achieve what otherwise might be imposed through military victory. In negotiations and mediation, third parties should encourage national identity groups to think and act politically; that is, to consider alternative, rather than wished for, outcomes and to weigh the potential consequences of pursuing one over another. Meaningful negotiations require substantive political discourse. The logical place to begin deciding ‘who rules what’ is to have the participants determine whether they can live together or only apart.