2. Tradition
“An eye for an eye for an eye for an eye … ends in making
everybody blind“ (Mahatma Gandhi)
One popular method in peacemaking process is “Quid pro quo”
meaning “something for something”a favor for a favor” or “give
and take”. All meaning are close ancient eye-for-an-eye codes of
justice (or mirror punishment). This approach is familiar also for
“tit for tat” game theory strategy.
3. Traditional Approach
In traditional peacemaking there are four traditional ways in which
conflicts between two parties are handled:
A wins, B loses;
B wins, A loses;
the solution is postponed because neither A nor B feels ready to
end the conflict;
a confused compromise is reached, which neither A nor B are
happy with.
4. Traditional Approach
From my viewpoint these traditional methods have at least
following shortages:
Basically peace deals are made between elite’s and their (game)
interests where participants are calculating are the wins due the
peace bigger than the wins due the war.
Many times the process is coercive based to will of outsiders not
necessary local needs.
5. In conclusion
From my opinion the traditional process will produce temporary –
tactical – solutions and the outcome is frozen conflict. The best
examples of these are maybe Bosnia after Dayton and Kosovo
after Ahtisaari’s pseudo talks.