Ripe Moments and Mutually Hurting Stalemates

Many theorists have tried to explain how any why conflicts end. Some theories have proven to be more successful than others. It is difficult to create a theory that applies to all conflicts because each conflict is different. Conflicts can be ethnic and religious based or they can be about resources and territories. William Zartman advocates a theory of ripeness and mutually hurting stalemates to explain how and why conflict have ended. Throughout this essay his theory will be analyze through the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Cambodia and the Oslo agreement. Through these three conflicts the strengths and weaknesses of ripeness theory can be seen

Zartmans theory states that when a conflict is ripe it is ready to be negotiated. A ripe moment is described as when both parties of the conflict are ready to negotiate. In that moment the parties are willing to agree to a settlement that has been there the whole time, but only now it attractive to them (Zartman, 2001). Ripe moments rely on the occurrence of a mutually hurting stalemate. This occurs when both parties are in a position in the conflict where they cannot escalate to victory and this deadlock is painful to both parties (Zartman, 2001). The main condition of a mutually hurting stalemate is when both parties in conflict realize that they cannot achieve their goals by continuing violence and it is extremely costly to continue (Ramsbotham, 2011). Mutually hurting stalemates occur when there is a approaching, past or currently avoided catastrophic moment (Zartman, 2001). This catastrophic moment is the deciding factor if action will take place, if nothing is done at this moment than the situation will get worse (Zartman, 2001). Mutually hurting stalemates are based on a cost...

... middle of paper ...

...shown in the global level (Amer, 2007). Ripeness can be used to explain the inner- Cambodian level of the conflict. Once it reaches a regional and global level ripeness cannot be used to explain those negotiations.

Ripeness and readiness are good theory’s to explain why conflicts ends. They both show how multiple factors come into play to end a conflict. “Ripeness is not sudden, but rather a complex process of transformations in the situation, shifts in public attitudes and new perceptions and visions among decision-makers” (Rambotham, 2011: 180). The Oslo negotiations and the peace process are good examples of the readiness theory and its ease explaining the resolution of these conflicts. The Cambodian conflict poses more difficulty being explained through ripeness. When conflicts are multilateral poses a challenge to readiness theory. Adapting readiness theory