Negotiating Peace in a World of Violence

Martyn Rhisiart Jones

A Coruña, Galicia. 9^th December 2025

Violent conflict does not end through force alone. History teaches us that the only way out of war, brutality, and suffering is through negotiation. And negotiation, in the real world, always requires compromise.

Yet today, calls for dialogue are too often branded as weakness, or worse, as ‘siding with terrorists.’ This is a dangerous lie. Advocating for peace is not an endorsement of violence. It is an insistence on the value of life. It is a recognition of the dignity of communities and the survival of societies.

The Necessity of Engagement

Some rivals refuse even to acknowledge their opponents as legitimate partners. Negotiators faced hardened enemies from the IRA in Northern Ireland to the FARC in Colombia. They encountered challenges from apartheid South Africa to the Israel–PLO, Hizbollah, Lebanon, Syria, and Hamas standoffs. These enemies rejected dialogue. And yet, every lasting resolution came when pragmatism overcame pride. Compromise became unavoidable. Violence was acknowledged as a costly dead end.

“Total victory is seldom achieved, and when it is, it is rarely lasting,” as Nelson Mandela would remind us. “True and enduring peace does not come from the triumph of one side over another. It comes from the courage to sit together. It requires the courage to listen and to seek common ground. Only when all parties, once enemies, recognise each other’s humanity. They see each other’s fears and hopes. Then a society can rise from the ashes of conflict. It can build a future that honours justice as much as it demands reconciliation.”

Compromise as a Moral Imperative

All successful peace agreements required concessions from all sides. The Good Friday Agreement, South Africa’s democratic transition, the Colombia–FARC peace accord, the Israel–Egypt treaty, and the Dayton Accords in Bosnia all demanded painful compromises. Peace is never perfect; it is always pragmatic. And it is only through compromise that societies can stop killing and begin rebuilding.

“To speak for peace is no mark of fear, nor a sign of weakness,” as Gwynfor Evans might say. “To yield in part is no surrender of principle. To listen to your enemy is not bowing to their cause. Those who call for dialogue do not side with violence; they stand for the life, dignity, and future of our communities. Negotiation and compromise are not demonstrations of defeat; they are the instruments by which societies resist destruction.”

The Courage of Dialogue

Negotiation is not an endorsement of wrongdoing. Dialogue is not an approval of violence. Diplomacy is not an act of surrender. Throughout history, states engaged with armed groups in Ireland, Colombia, South Africa, or the Middle East. They did not confer legitimacy on acts of terror. These interactions happened. They were not endorsements of terror. The engagements were responses to a higher responsibility. This responsibility is the preservation of life and the restoration of society.”

To meet one’s adversary at the table does not diminish the pain of the past nor ignore the injustices suffered; instead, it recognises that the future of civilians depends upon restraint, courage, and the willingness to imagine a shared resolution.

Examples:

– Good Friday Agreement (Northern Ireland, 1998)

– South Africa’s transition (1994)

– Colombia–FARC Peace Agreement (2016)

– Israel–Egypt Peace Treaty (1979)

– Dayton Accords (Bosnia, 1995)

State and Non-State Terror

“We must be clear about what we mean when we speak of terrorism,” Tony Benn would warn. “Terrorism is defined by actions. It involves the deliberate use of violence to intimidate, coerce, or destroy. It is not defined by the office, uniform, or flag of the perpetrator. A government is culpable when it uses its armies to terrorise its own people. It is equally culpable when using its police or its laws to do so. It is as culpable as any armed group in the hills or the streets that terrorise another nation.”

Recent history confirms this. Investigations by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and UN commissions have provided documentation. They show terror tactics used by both states and non-state actors. These instances range from Gaza and Ukraine to Myanmar and Syria. They highlight that violence and intimidation cannot be excused by the identity of the perpetrator.

Historical and present examples include:

– The former Assad regime in Syria

– Pinochet’s Chile

– Argentine junta during the “Dirty War”

– Khmer Rouge in Cambodia

– Colonial regimes in Kenya, Algeria, and the Congo

– Netanyahu’s Israel

– Russia and Ukraine

– Myanmar (Tatmadaw) and Rohingya

The Role of the International Community

The United Nations and other global actors play an indispensable role in sustaining peace.

“The UN provides a neutral space where parties can come together, humanitarian aid can reach those in desperate need, and agreements can gain legitimacy and oversight,” as Bill Clinton might put it. “It monitors compliance, holds all sides accountable, and reminds us that no nation, however powerful, can solve the world’s challenges alone. The UN amplifies our ability to turn conflict into compromise, chaos into stability, and suffering into hope.”

The UN and international partners have been essential in:

– Northern Ireland peace monitoring

– Peacekeeping in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Mozambique, East Timor

– Cambodian transition

– Balkan ceasefire monitoring

The Path Forward

Negotiation, compromise, and dialogue are not signs of weakness; they are the instruments by which societies endure. State and non-state actors alike can perpetrate terror. Still, courage, patience, and principled engagement offer a path out of violence.

“To speak for peace is no mark of fear, nor a sign of weakness; to compromise is not to surrender principle; to listen to your enemy is not to bow to their cause,” Evans reminds us. “Those who call for dialogue do not side with violence—they stand for the life, dignity, and future of our communities. Only through such resolve can we lift the shadow of conflict and leave a legacy of life rather than ruin.”

The work is challenging. It demands imagination, patience, and moral courage. But history shows, again and again, that the enduring victories are never those of absolute force—they are the victories of compromise, of justice tempered by mercy, and of humanity choosing dialogue over destruction.

Many thanks for reading!