“The Negotiating Parties Must Understand What The Other Side Thinks”

— Dee Aker 

Dee Aker is the deputy director at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice at the University of San Diego, California. The mission of the Institute is to foster peace, cultivate justice and create a safer world through education, research and peace-making activities. An authority on conflict management and peace, she has visited Nepal a number of times to interact with the civil society and political leaders here in order to help build peace. This time she is in town conducting various workshops, particularly on the theme of involving women, political leaders and NGO leaders in peace endeavors and post-conflict management. She spoke to SANJAYA DHAKAL on various issues related to peace and human rights. Excerpts: 

How do you find the situation of conflict in Nepal?

Nepal is really in the throes of difficult internal conflict. It has been sad and frustrating to see the increase in the complications around the conflict. Initially, when we started talking to people of Nepal and started responding to their requests for training or work related to conflict, it was basically a two-party conflict. Now it is far more than two. Many say it is a three-party conflict but I think it has gone beyond that. Nepal is going to have to make a strong effort to work together to salvage the problem of the people who are torn apart. However, the five political parties coming together is a sign that people are willing to go beyond their individual interests. 

What do you think should be done to resolve this conflict?

Something must be done that allows each of the parties to see the advantage of solving it. They have to reach a point where they can see there is more to gain by working together and resolving this conflict jointly. And that’s the hardest thing to do ever in a conflict. People get locked in their position; they don’t have the ability to see what’s on the other side, the interests of the other party that may be explored for some bit of common ground. For instance, the political parties see themselves as the spokesperson for the people. Likewise, I would assume that the King also feels that he is doing what is the best for the people. These two parties, first of all, have to see that there is a greater opportunity in working together for both to get what they want. They have to sit down for negotiations that go underneath why each wants to be in charge. In negotiations, the best negotiators always find out what the other side is thinking about and try to understand how that can fit into a different level of discussion. They must be inquisitive and not assume they know why the other side is acting the way it is.

As somebody who is involved in peace-making in different parts of the world, how do you see the Nepalese society coping with the conflict?

The ability of Nepalese people to continue to go on despite everything is amazing. Even during bandh they somehow manage. When I look around, I find it hard to imagine how without money, decreasing services, deteriorating conditions in this city and the country's infrastructure that there is this graciousness, commitment and willingness to wait and respond and try to work with whoever is willing to work for them - at least here in the city. Outside I have found that victims of security forces, army, and Maoists are morally and emotionally devastated; but even there some women who are victims and survivors are working together to try to deal with the stress, suffering and isolation from services and to overcome traditional divisions of caste, class and ethnic groups that added to problems. I have seen a transition in attitude, from last year to this year, about the expectations of the people towards the King – now there is less willingness to assume that the King is an answer. Now they are more engaged, some trying to find out what they can do, who they can really trust. That is another reason for negotiations to get on track.

We have had two peace talks with the Maoists in the past – and both the times it failed. What do you think were the reasons behind the failure?

Negotiating is a very hard thing. It is not just about going there and stating one’s position and then going to the press to release one’s statements. It should be very subtle. It takes a lot of work. I think here the lack of experience complicated the matter – no matter how good-hearted the persons were. The actual work is very difficult. I think that last year’s ceasefire had been very successful in many ways for quite sometime. But not all people were that inclined for justice as power plays were still being made. And, yes, there was outside negative influence. One cannot discount 9/11 in the United States and the current administration's solution to conflicts and the emphasis around the world on terrorism. Using that term to fit people who seek to bring different voices to the table, whether they fit the term or not, was handy but unfortunate. When I was here in January last year, the human rights organizations wrote a joint letter to US president and other world leaders requesting that they not to declare Maoists as terrorists since that would affect communication needed with them. Unfortunately, we are back to square one or worse now.

What could be done to avoid similar failures in peace talks in future?

The negotiating parties must understand what the other side thinks. With that one could see if there is any common ground. It is not a matter of compromise. It is not a matter of saying 'Ok, you do this much we will do that much'. It is all about finding out what is the real need and asking civil society and the victims what they need and letting that inform parties negotions. Anywhere the negotiations have been successful and lasting, civil society and human rights are included. There has to be a plan for transition from authoritarian to a more democratic system. It is interesting to see that in the countryside Maoist women and non-Maoist working together to get something done – which does not happen higher up in the chain as they are locked into their ideologies.

Do you think there is a need for third party mediation?

The third party mediation issue is a difficult one. I do think that what’s needed is similar, real and grounded training for all the negotiating Nepalese parties in how to negotiate. I think in Nepal, the parties here can do this. It is just that they haven’t had opportunity to sit down and think through the process of what happens in the negotiation. It is not just about signing some agreements. I guess I don’t think third party mediation is necessary here. Even if you invite a third party, they and the Nepalis still have to learn a lot about addressing the underlying issues that will cause another and another conflict even when this is solved temporarily. And in most cases, third parties do not pay attention to these issues; they simply focus getting leaders to sign a paper that does may not be a solution that will last. In fact, equal training opportunities to negotiating parties could help a lot, especially training that looked at how to include the voices of civil society and addressed underlying human rights concerns. 

How do you assess the human rights situation in the country?

Human rights problem now has gotten far more complicated. I see there is less control of individuals among the Maoists; and then the government is not willing to acknowledge its human rights abuses or allow outside review. All parties have to get out, be on the ground and talk to the victims on both sides. First, the leadership has to recognize the problem and from there one can move on to real solutions.

What role, if any, can the international community play in improving the rights situation?

I think there are several things that the international community can do. It could start by lending strong support to the best practices in human rights education at all levels. I believe the European Community is willing to play this role. At another level, the INGOs need to support the Nepalese NGOs working human rights and peace-building through different channels.