LASTING PEACE BETWEEN COUNTRIES AND INDIVIDUALS

There is a difference between a pause in conflicts and lasting peace.

In international conflicts scholars have identified the criteria for long-term reconciliations. The parties must be at a point where they recognize total victory is impossible and continued conflict is painful. Additionally, negotiations must involve all parties and address the root cause of the disagreement and acknowledge each other’s issues. They must be willing to negotiate in good faith and remain committed to the process as they build a new relationship.

One recent example is Cambodia and Thailand with more than 500 miles of shared land border. The boundry was established by a 1907 map drawn under French colonial rule to separate Cambodia from Thailand, but the government of Thailand has long argued the map is inaccurate. Disputes have arisen over temples that both countries claim as part of their national heritage. Military confrontations have erupted in several areas along the perimeter in question.

A ceasefire was brokered by Malaysia. In July, 2025, President Trump entered into the dispute. He made the ceasefire a pre-condition to their respective trade talks with Washington. Both countries agreed to an immediate and unconditional ceasefire as well as removing heavy weapons and landmines. Just this month, major hostilities broke out as both countries accused the other of breaking the ceasefire.

Why didn’t the truce last? It’s pretty obvious that a short term “deal” based in trade talks with the United States didn’t address most of the criteria for lasting peace. The parties weren’t ready to settle nor was the root cause of the conflict ever addressed. Short term “deals” don’t result in lasting accords between countries or individuals.

Fred Jandt is the author of the new book “How to Survive a Mediation” available at Barnes and Noble and Amazon.

Happy Holidays to one and all! —FJ