The Timing of Peace Initiatives: Hurting Stalemates and Ripe Moments

I found this article fascinating because I have never heard of a ‘ripe moment’ before. The purpose of this article was to talk about the timing of conflict intervention. The author talks about how the parties need to both see negotiation as a viable option because they have been unsuccessful using military strength or they are in a stalemate. Parties also need to feel there is a WO (way out), meaning that they see the possibility of negotiation and resolution. I am a little confused about what this means. It was upsetting to read about how many conflicts do not come to negotiation until there are hurting stalemates; I would hope that some form of conflict resolution might come in to play before violence, but I suppose that is a bit idealistic of me. I did like how the author stressed that if there is not a ‘ripeness’ it does not mean to not try and work towards peace or non-violence; it just means that the parties might not want to come to the table for a full blown negotiation.
One last thing that I found important in this article was the idea that the parties themselves recognized the need for negotiation (via a spokesperson). It might escalate the conflict to try to go to a negotiation before the parties are ready. I think that sometimes the U.S. is imposing with there peace proceedings, so perhaps this is a necessary article for politicians to read.