Content area
Full text
Introduction
At the end of the Cold War in the 1980s, tension ran high between the Soviet Union and the USA. As trust deteriorated, the rising threat of nuclear war loomed overhead. In the face of these strained relations, Gorbachev’s rise to power presented a new opportunity for disarmament, spurred by the distaste he and Reagan shared for nuclear weaponry. Unfortunately, their first in-person meeting in Switzerland yielded little progress, ultimately continuing the longstanding political stalemate between the two nations. However, in 1985, Gorbachev declared a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing as a move to continue the dialogue on disarmament with the USA. This conciliatory action brought both parties back to the negotiating table leading to the historic Reykjavik Summit. While these talks ultimately failed due to Reagan’s immovability on USA research into a space-based missile defense system, the ability of each party to resume negotiations despite their longstanding political stalemate is a testament to the initiatives that were taken to emphasize mutual goals and communicate positive intentions (Weisberg, 2016).
The resolution of seemingly intractable identity and resource conflicts such as that between Regan and Gorbachev require the utilization of various tools and techniques to understand the most effective way to de-escalate conflict and promote resolution processes. While research and experience explore some hypotheses, Deutsch and Goldman (2006) note the need for more analyses to address and explain the myriad of unanswered questions fundamental to knowledge and practice in the area of conflict resolution. Rothman (1997) suggests that practitioners’ selection of tools may be influenced more by dominant cultures of social and professional practice than by what may be most suitable to resolve issues. Thus, one might reframe Deutsch and Goldman’s observation, by noting the need for answers that actuate the most fitting tactics to engage the “Other” in more complex conflict scenarios. For the purpose of this paper, the term unilateral conciliatory initiative (UCI) will be used synonymously with unilateral conciliatory action to maintain consistency with previous research.
Unilateral conciliatory initiatives
Mitchell (1991, p. 408) describes a UCI as a de-escalatory gesture initiated by one party in a conflict that helps to foster trust by making the initiator seem vulnerable; however, for a UCI to not be considered a retreat from “clearly delineated, tenaciously...