In 1982, I wrote my law school thesis on the negotiation of cease fire agreements. Years of conflict, recrimination and deep-rooted mistrust make cease-fire negotiations and agreements especially challenging, unstable and fragile. But they are an essential first step toward longer-term political cooperation.
As Washington faces battle-hardened political divisions and bitter mistrust in the wake of the 2016 election, our leaders might learn from our diplomats.
In a war, neither side trusts the intentions or good will of the other. Rebuilding that trust requires multiple, small, practical steps that don’t put core values or issues at risk.
After a war, these confidence-building measures take many forms – agreements to distribute food, allow the movement of refugees or re-open schools. Small successes open the door to bigger agreements.
What could Republicans and Democrats agree on? How about supporting our veterans, funding our national parks, reducing waste and fraud, rebuilding our roads and bridges, and funding research on children’s health? Rather than looking for a signature victory in the first 100 days, let’s find a hundred small agreements.
Extremists hate compromise and conciliation. At the end of every war, there are those who throw the last few bombs – those who benefit from war and gain their support from followers who fear defeat. They do their best to disrupt a cease-fire.
In the worst cases, extremists win: Yitzhak Rabin’s assassin derailed the Oslo peace agreement in 1995. Successful peacemakers, like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr., have been able to manage their most extreme allies.
Now that the election is over, leaders on both sides will be successful only if they have the stature and authority to manage the extremists in their parties.
Many peace agreements run off the rails because neither side manages the cycle of post-agreement recrimination. Each side exaggerates the violations of the other and retaliates with escalating retaliation.
What do diplomats do? They advise leaders to appoint bipartisan commissions with respected community leaders to act as mediators and monitors.
South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission helped heal the bitterness after decades of violence. Archbishop Desmond Tutu led the commission. He was not a politician, had no election to win, and won the trust of all sides.
President Obama appointed Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, both respected former politicians, to lead a commission seeking bipartisan agreement on the budget. Although each represented a point of view, neither had an election to win, and both sought to guide the commission to a compromise that would work for the country.
Perhaps multiple bipartisan commissions, each staffed with former politicians and respected leaders and assigned to find compromise on specific issues, might break the logjam, one small agreement after another.
There is much to do at the end of a war: reconstruction, disarmament, economic recovery, but nothing is successful without peace.
In the wake of the election, there is much on the agenda: improve our schools, remake our health care system, rebuild our infrastructure, reform immigration policy and restructure our tax code, to name a few. Nothing will move forward without bipartisan conciliation.
If polarized partisan politics is a root cause of our inability to address our country’s biggest problems, that’s where the next administration should focus.
Cabinet positions are important, but the most important appointment may be a Czar of Bipartisanship. As the most important noncabinet position with an open portfolio, the vice president would be an obvious choice and Tim Kaine has shown an ability to reach across the aisle. Olympia Snowe or Mitt Romney might make interesting cohorts. It’s time to be creative.
(Scott Brown of Hanover is a founding member of the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard Law School.)