From armed struggle to political negotiation: why? When? How? Clem McCartney (2005) Armed groups’ use of violence is often deeply ingrained. Approaching this problem creatively, Clem McCartney posits three possible stances: a position of militancy; a dual strategy in which force is the primary option but talks and ceasefires can be used for tactical advantage; and a conflict transformation strategy. In influencing a transition to the latter position, McCartney identifies elements on a notional weighing scale that might push a group towards either militancy or conflict transformation. Ascendancy in the struggle between ‘hawks’ and ‘doves’ is usually determined by the balance of arguments at any one time favouring the analysis of a particular faction: inferences drawn from external events are very important in determining the credibility of the analyses and external actors should try to strengthen the trends that give a peace process credibility.
Top | Engaging armed groups | Contents
|