Breaking the Deadlock
Breaking the deadlock: Changing payoffs
One effective way of making this game a negotiable, cooperative game having a peaceful solution of the crisis is to change the payoffs of the PD game. The best way to break the PD deadlock is to use third party (s) intervention which can influence the warring sides to change their stance and strategies.
Samuel Bowels (2003) presented a good analysis of a generalized situation of how PD can be changed to Chicken game (Assurance game). Bowels’ third party exogenous intervention is not feasible in this game because the party that was supposed to be intervening actually holds some of the power, which directly and indirectly influences the warring faction’s strategies. So, delving into the specifics of a Chicken game is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, we will discuss how this game’s payoff can be influenced by the international community and the political parties.
Lumsden (1973) argues that “carrot approach” to conflict resolution can play a vital role in defusing deadlocks. This comes from a third party such as the UN which delivers certain privileges as “carrots” to both the sides to maintain flexibility so that a favorable payoff is attained. In case of nonconformity to any deals, the third party could adopt “stick approach” so that there is no incentive to defect from mutually beneficial deals. One of the most useful enforcer in the global context is the UN. In our context the UN does play a role but it cannot entirely influence the course of action without backing from the US, India and the EU. Rather the combined effort of India, US and the EU through the UN for a military intervention could compel the establishment side and the rebels to break the deadlock. However, Lumsden argues that large-scale military intervention, far from creating the conditions of peace, would increase the level of conflict to significant international dimensions. Hence, this option to change the payoffs is not feasible in Nepal.
- Creating an environment of trust
- The SPA and the international community can play an important role in creating an environment of trust between the warring factions. The US, India and the EU can play a vital role in making sure that the King does not defect from the strategies that would bring peace to the nation. Similarly, the UN and the SPA can play a vital role in making sure that the rebels remain flexile and committed by adopting strategy that would lead the nation towards permanent peace. This process should be simultaneous because in case one defects, it will have the dominating strategy. So, any further doors of cooperation would be perpetually shut if there is defection in the first attempt.
- The international community can influence the Royal government and the security forces in a number of ways. As stated earlier, reduction in development as well as financial aid creates pressure to the government. This tool has been used by the international community, especially the EU, UK and Japan a number of times. Meanwhile, the main source of force of the government, RNA and the security forces can be kept under pressure to seek compromise and not deviate from it because they heavily depend on military assistance. Any change in this assistance directly correlates to their capacity to counter insurgency.
- Enhancing communication
- Generally PD assumes that there is no communication between the players. However, complete incommunicado might be an extreme situation. Given the advancement in technology and the acceptance of the vitality of press freedom, each player can have a certain idea of the other player’s strategies and possible moves. Informal communication and knowledge of potential moves is possible through the media. However, since direct two way communication is not possible between the warring factions it would be definitely helpful to bridge the communication gap between them. This can be especially helpful when a third party facilitates communication process. A large chunk of misperception and misunderstanding could be eradicated if communication smoothens in time.
- For the Nepalese conflict it is vital that the two sides establish formal communication to build trust and dispel any misperceptions. This would aid in negotiation process as well. The local media has been playing a crucial role in disseminating the views of the both warring factions. A number of times negotiations fail because of poor communication between the players. Smooth communication can strongly influence the payoffs and could help break the stalemate. Along with the local media the international community can play a vital role as well. For instance, the role played by Norway in Sri Lankan conflict resolution is an example in hand. In Nepal, the UN or neutral countries like Norway and Sweden can play a crucial role in bridging the communication gap between the warring sides.
- Concurrent strategy shift
- One of the biggest impediments in evolving a situation where both the players concede to change their strategies and adopt more flexible stance is that it should occur simultaneously. If the government shifts from status quo to modify position and the rebels do not, or vice versa, then the results is conflict. So in such cases attaining the Pareto optimal outcome Peace remains a distant dream. The challenge here is how to encourage both the warring factions to change status quo simultaneously.
- This kind of situation demands a third party(s) intervention to break the deadlock. In our context the third parties are the SPA and the international community. The two exogenous forces should work in tandem and devise strategies so that they can encourage both the warring factions to change strategies concurrently. The international community has a great influence in the government. It can compel or provide incentives so that the government agrees to modify its stance. One of the easiest ways to do this one is to promise that it would resume military assistance, economic aid and not impose potential sanctions against the authorities and freeze assets and aids if the government modifies its position. This basically means injecting the withdrawn payoffs (support) in the payoff matrix presented above. The international community had stalled ¾ support to the government when it was sticking to status quo. Now, the international community could convince the government that it will not stall the support. This way the government can be convinced that it has nothing to loose but many things to gain if it changes its position.
- Meanwhile, the SPA can convince the Maoists that if it modifies its position then they will extend full support. It is also vital that the international community, which has be hostile to the rebels, become more lenient and promise acknowledgement of whatever the outcome be after the rebels join the political mainstream following negotiations with the establishment. This way there can be a two way trust-building mechanism that can give incentives to the two warring factions to change their stance so that a more optimal solution is reached. This is the one and only option available to resolve the conflict. However, if the rebels defect even after negotiation then a strong international force should be used to threaten them to come back to the terms of any negotiation. In fact, International Crisis Group, in a recent report, has recommended a strong Contact Group (including India, US and UK working under the UN), with a 200 strong force from other countries backed by helicopters to ensure that the Maoists do not defect (ICG, 2006). If they defect then the use of this force will force the rebels to bow down to any pact reached earlier.
One of the interesting aspects of this intervention is that the hitherto irrational players would be forced to act in a rational way (and broadly to realize their rational dream of peace) by third parties intervention and incentive mechanism. The evolving nature of this kind of conflict necessitates third parties intervention. It is because of the third party intervention in Sri Lanka that both the LTTE and the government have been observing ceasefire and continuing negotiations since 2001.
