Prof.Dan
INTRODUCTION
briefly explain conflict resolution theories and conflict of Ukraine
UKRAINE CRISIS
Sovyetler Birliği’nin dağılmasının ardından Rusya Federasyonu’nun Ukrayna üzerindeki etkinliği Rus yanlısı hükümetler üzerinden sürerken, AB ise bölgenin birliğe entegrasyonuçabaları çerçevesinde Ukrayna ile ilişkilerini geliştirme yollarını aramıştı. 2004-2005 yıllarında adına “Turuncu Devrim”denilen bir süreç sonunda yönetimden memnun olmayan halkın sokağa dökülmesiyle Batı ileRusya’nın Ukrayna üzerinden bir hesaplaşması söz konusu olmuştu. Bu süreç iki kutbun ilişkilerini yeniden düzenleyen de bir süreçti. Batı yanlısı siyasi kanadın galibiyetiyle sonuçlanan Turuncu Devrim etkilerinin, Rusya yanlısı politikalarıyla öne çıkan Cumhurbaşkanı Viktor Yanukoviç’in 2010 yılında iktidara gelmesiyle kaybolduğu sanılmıştı.Fakat 2013 senesinin sonuna doğru Yanukoviç’in AB ile Ukrayna arasında planlanan ve Ukrayna’ya uzun vadede AB üyeliği yolunu açacak olan İşbirliği Anlaşması’nı imzalamaktan vazgeçtiğini açıklamasıyla ülkedeki gerilim tekrar açığa çıktı. AB ile entegrasyonun sürmesini talep eden Ukrayna halkı sokaklara dökülerek protesto gösterilerine başladı. Durumun kontrolden çıkmasıyla Ukrayna’da dönemin Cumhurbaşkanı Yanukoviç ülkeyi terk ederek Rusya’ya sığındı.
Yanukoviç’in ülkeyi terk ettiği Şubat 2014’te Ukrayna’da siyasetin belirleyici unsuru olarak Rusya karşıtlarının öne çıkacağı tahmin ediliyordu. Yanukoviç’in görevinden alınmasıyla Parlamento’daki Rus etkisinin zayıflaması üzerine Rusya bu kez sert güç unsurlarını kullanarak Ukrayna’daki çıkarlarını savunma yoluna gitti. Rusya uluslararası hukukun sınırlarını bir hayli zorlayan eylemleri sonucunda Ukrayna’nın Kırım yarımadasını ilhak etti. Bunu yaparken Kosova isgalini ornek gosterdi . Kirimda yasayan Rus azinliklari koruma amacinda oldugunu belirtirek isgalini hakli bir nedene oturtmaya calisti .Takip eden süreçte ise Doğu Ukrayna’daki ayrılıkçı silahlı güçlere destek vererek Ukrayna’nın toprak bütünlüğünü ihlale yönelik eylemlerini sürdürdü. Rusya’nın Ukrayna’ya ait toprakların bir kısmını ilhak edip bir kısmındaki ayrılıkçı silahlıfaaliyetlere açık destek vermesiyle ABD ve AB duruma diplomatik kanallar ve ekonomik yaptırımlarile müdahale etti. ABD ve AB tarafından uygulanan yaptırımlar, Rusya’nın uluslararası hukuka mugayir hareketlerinin maliyetini artırarak tutumunu bir kez daha gözden geçirmesini sağlama amacı güdüyordu. Fakat Rusya bu ekonomik yaptırımlar sonucu yaşadığı ekonomik kayıplara rağmen gerek Kırım’da gerekse Ukrayna’nın doğusunda yürüttüğü politikalarından geri adım atmadı.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION THEORIES
Conflict resolution is a high level of intervention, according to definition, and deals with the cause of the conflict and the establishment of a stronger, longer-lasting relationship between the conflicting parties. This approach is based on the assumption that the root causes of the conflict can be found and transformed and the conflict structure can be changed on this basis (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall 2005: 29). There are various methods for conflict resolution. Establishing goodwill for negotiations, establishing bilateral relations rules, determining common objectives within each of the competing parties, transferring information and diplomatic persuasion are often used in non-coercive ways. In addition, the non-coercive methods do not bring the expected consequences; interfering external forces occasionally cause economic and military incentive / pressure applications.
The academic work in this area has been more extensive and varied since the mid-1990s, as the magnitude and scope of international conflict studies have increased significantly. Especially the research of new methods for increasing the effectiveness of peaceful external intervention has been taken place in the central. Here, the theories of timing-maturity, punctuation and duality of power and neutrality and mediation theory are explained.
1)Timing – maturity
One of the most important problems ahead of the conflict resolution is the timing of the beginning. Many scholars recommend early intervention in conflict, as the cost of late intervention is becoming more complicated and increasing (human loss, destruction of social infrastructure and economic destruction). However, while it is easy to give advice, implementing it is not always easy. For example, it is difficult to mobilize resources in order to launch a conflict resolution process (materially and spiritually), since the international community is not paying much attention at the beginning of the conflict. In addition, early conflict resolution efforts can be criticized as violations of the sovereignty of another country (Vaux, 2011). For this reason, setting the appropriate timing for launching peace projects, including international peace negotiations and humanitarian assistance, is central to the debate.
There are many helpful suggestions about timing, but the "maturity" model recommended by William Zartman has been the most noticeable suggestion. Maturity Model; It is seen as an important indicator to intervene in order to end the conflict. In addition, Zartman points out that this 'maturity for solution' time is determined by three conditions: high costs of war, power balance and some political institutions (Zartman, 2003).
Many studies support this model. According to research, a peaceful settlement generally can be achieved by increasing the cost of war due to the following three reasons. These are (a) consuming the limited resources of the warriors, (b) the results of the expected victory are still less appealing, and (c) internal pressure is increasing. Regarding the power balance, the point at which I agree with their work is that the warriors usually do not deny sitting on the negotiating table when they realize there is a power balance. Finally, when domestic political constraints are combined with the above conditions, this increases the chance of reconciliation. This is especially true in democratic societies. A classic example is the American Civil War, in which Abraham Lincoln preferred to sign a peace treaty instead of struggling to get a complete victory.
On the other hand, some commentators point out that "a dilemma in which mutual harms are given" should be treated as a self-fulfilling condition. But maturity is also a problem of perception. As Zartman himself acknowledges, it is necessary for the actors of basic condition to perceive it (Zartman, 2013). Furthermore, Lederach argues that foreseeability of the forgiveness in terms of a practitioner requires analysts or practitioners with a capacity to assess a very weak and long-term process and opportunities for constructive change during a crisis (Lederach, 1999). In this sense, although the theories of maturity are based on the concept of logics, the validity of these theories is subject to the inevitable limitations of the negotiators. In addition, there will be a variety of times for maturity, in which there will be a need for interventionists to intervene instead of waiting for the impasse of mutual harm. In addition, studies have shown that negotiations for the Oslo Agreement between Israel and Palestine (1993) and the conditions in the mid-1980s, such as peace negotiations in South Africa, were not linked to events (Rothstein, 2007).
2) SPOILERS PROBLEMS
Those who sabotage the process are actors who do not want an end to the armed conflict through peace negotiations, and strive to keep the negotiations from progressing. The most important factor behind these behaviours is 'fear' according to Stedman in terms of motivation behind decisions. These actors perceive peace negotiations as a threat for many reasons. First, some actors refuse to negotiate because their movements are based on religious ideology (most Islamic movements). Secondly, belligerent parties who take advantage of the war economy view peace negotiations as a threat to their financial security (RUF in Sierra Leone). Third, some actors believe that they will marginalize within their societies in the social / political arena after the negotiations (Serbian authority in Kosovo).
How do peacekeepers prevent the fighting parties from turning into process destroyers and how do they involve them in the negotiation process again? During the many peace processes that took place in the 1990s, external peace supporters have implemented 3 strategies: promotion, pressure socialization. However, it cannot be said that these strategies are very valid. Currently, methods that can be applied against the actors who sabotage and destroy the peace process are discussed.
3)POWER AND INDICATION
Power and impartiality factors are believed to enhance the effectiveness of third party intervention. First, intervention is seen as a process of involvement in power. The interlocutor must have 'rewarding, punishment, and gentleness to encourage the parties' in the name of the agreed agreement. Especially when the fighting parties are reluctant to stick to the negotiation plans, the power of the intervening party does not leave much choice but to accept its mediation. For this reason, most studies emphasize the role of military operations and economic sanctions as compelling methods of intervention.
However, some of them do not participate in this idea. For example, Fisher argues that although compulsive methods are useful for supporting 'first engagement' they are detrimental to the development of 'autonomy and electoral freedom' values among national actors (Fisher, 2001: 19). (Watkins and Rosegrants, 2002: 271). In the meantime, in some cases, interfering with the excessive use of the printing method may be dangerous As a result of a win-win situation; it is likely that they will cause a situation that could lead to rebellion and more conflicts.
Secondly, neutrality for mediators is considered an essential element. In many cases, the intervening parties are less confident and will not be willing to negotiate until they are convinced of the neutrality of the mediator. In traditional discourse, third-party neutrality is considered a prerequisite for successful intervention. This idea is based on the assumption that the parties do not trust mediators if they believe that mediators are in some way related to the other side. (Bercovitch & DeRounen, 2005: 104). In particular, the American mediation discourse tends to emphasize that an ideal mediator should be completely unbiased, non-prejudiced, and without any affiliation to the parties (Avruch, 1998: 83).
However, this assumption is confronted with various criticisms by many perspectives. Researchers claim that neutrality cannot provide a basis for an absolutely successful intervention. While others have provided evidence at the point of ineffectiveness of impartial and uncompromising intervention in the war zones, others have argued that mediators acting in good faith towards one side can play a significant role in a significant degree. In some extreme cases, people argue that more successful outcomes can be obtained from the strategy of neutrality by allowing conflicts to 'self-destruct' or 'to apply a decisive intervention to one side' (Rambotham, Woodhouse and Miall, 2005: 142).
Basically, there is another question about whether a third party can be totally neutral. As peacekeeping operations provide opportunities for state interests, most actors are involved in the economy and security interests. Where external actors are not a specific economic and security interest, their potential ideological and cultural bias must exist.
4) Mediation Theory: this term has not obvious meaning in the International Relations Meaning of mediation is traditionally complex and after the new world order this meaning shifted to new conditions. It is a form of conflict resolutions in IR.
Third part has a role in the process of creating peace and facilitating agreement.
Mediator has crucial role.
Zartman and Tovval write of American mediation in the politics of the Middle East . Especially Israeli and Palestinian . Besides all process related to social understand each other.
GEORGE ORWEL alinti yap!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edward Said : israil – filistin catismasinin bu kadar uzun surme nedeni olark iki tarafin birbirini yanlis anlamasi ve anlasmaya gonulsuz olmalari oldugunu belirtmistir.
UKRAINE CRISIS AND IMPLICATON TO CONFLICT RESOLUTION THEORY: MEDIATON THEORY
