Inclusion of polarized differences within the so-called team in relation to the government of Rwanda was vital for the lack of agreement during the negotiations. Two-level game situation and chaotic structures led to the failure of the bargaining power of the government of Rwanda during the negotiation process. One of the eventual outcomes of the negotiation process was the composition of the national army with 50% from the Tutsis population. This led to inabilities and sense of inferiority in the case of Rwanda. It is also essential to note the difference between the fractured and ineffective Government of Rwanda in comparison to the strongly and united RPF during the negotiation process. This unity of the RPF was under the influence of the military superiority following the break-out of the civil war and essence of exile in the case of Uganda.
The concept of war in Uganda was essential in the efforts of the Tutsis military for the purposes of restoration of political and social reforms in the case of Rwanda. During the negotiation process, it is essential to fight for more years and appear less eager for the settlement thus an opportunity to realize success in the phase of implementation. This is reflected in the approach adopted by the RPF during the negotiation process. This is evident in the implementation of alternative approach in the case of RPF through fighting rather than bargain in the context of the peace or negotiation processes. RPF gained confidence in damaging the government though insurgency during the negotiation processes. This follows abandoning of the negotiation table by the RPF to implement offensive approach. The eventual outcome of application of force as an option to bargaining was displacing thousands of citizens within 20 miles from the capital city of Kigali. This application of force was facilitated by negative influence of the course on the Government of Rwanda in relation to economic implications (McClintock p.80). The civil war was essential in causing harm to the economy of Rwanda thus inability of the government to participate effectively and efficiently during the negotiation process. Institutional barriers were essential in fuelling failure of the implementation phase.
This is because of lack of positive feelings with reference to the outcome of the negotiations processes. It is essential to determine the presence of opportunities in addressing weaknesses by the Government of Rwanda during the negotiation process. This is through implementation of a more level playing field in relation to the minimization of significant gains by the extremists during the negotiation process. It is ideal to examine implementation of two critical strategies in the elimination or minimization of dilemma in the case of Arusha accords or negotiation processes. The first aspect for providing adequate solution to the dilemma relates to the concept of concessions. It is ideal to note application of Boulware Strategy in relation to making reasonable opening and remaining firm to the negotiation process is essential in antagonizing both parties during the negotiation process.
Negotiating parties inter-into the peace process with the aim of making valuable concessions in relation to give-and-take. It becomes a problem when one party fails to make a concession during the negotiation process. This is because of the representation of lack of respect and recognition towards the rights, interest, and legitimacy of the other party during the negotiation process. Despite the fact that RPF did not adopt and implement the concept of Boulware strategy, it is essential to note the influence of application of force as an alternative to bargaining process. In order to minimize antagonization of the government of Rwanda, it was essential for the RPF to make at least few substantial concessions during the peace process (Scorgie p.70).
The second approach in relation to minimization of the dilemma during negotiation process is the strategy of logrolling. Despite the fact that the eventual outcome of the negotiation process was viewed as distributive bargaining, it is evident to note the essence of win-lose situation as in the case of many members of the government of Rwanda. There were numerous opportunities for the achievement of win-win situation during the negotiation process. The second strategy is vital in the generation of alternative approaches in the case of distributive strategy during the negotiation process. This relates to focusing on time with the aim of registering long and short-term goals. The government of Rwanda were focused on the achievement of present goals during the negotiation process. This relates to stopping the war and restoring the economy of the nations. RPF was focused on the long-term goals thus implementation of patience with the aim of transforming the government and economy of Rwanda. It is essential to note lack of implementation of such integrative strategies in the elimination of dilemma during the negotiation processes. The main cause of the problems relates to the exclusion of the right wing of the government (Joyce p.15)
K.I. Klepp, et al. "Changes in Exposure to Information, Communication and Knowledge
About AIDS Among School Children in Northern Tanzania, 1992-2005." AIDS Care
20.3 (2008): 382-387.
"Peace Accord in Rwanda May Be the Real Thing." Africa Report 38.5 (1993): 10.
Rothchild, Donald. "On Implementing Africa's Peace Accords: From Defection to
Cooperation." Africa Today 42.1/2 (1995): 8
Dolgopol, Ustina. "Women and Peace Building: What We Can Learn From the Arusha
Peace Agreement." Australian Feminist Studies 21.50 (2006): 257-273.
C. Schlotterer, et al. "World-Wide Survey of an Accord Insertion and Its Association With
DDT Resistance in Drosophila Melanogaster." Molecular Ecology 13.8 (2004): 2491-
McClintock, Elizabeth a., and Terence Nahimana. "Managing the Tension Between
Inclusionary and Exclusionary Processes: Building Peace in Burundi." International