Leaders of parties to enduring conflicts change their views and their rhetoric towards the other as conflict dynamics change. But what comes first? A change in rhetoric or a change in the conflict dynamics? To better understand the role rhetoric plays in conflict I analyse the conflict dynamics and the rhetoric of various leaders involved in specific episodes of escalation and de-escalation in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. I examined six cases of engagement between the British and The Irish Republican Movement, 3 in which the British were sending positive signals and 3 in which they were sending negative signals. The cases are also ones in which the Republican movement was either sending positive signals, negative signals, or mixed signals (2 of each). I conduct a Structured Focused Comparison of the 6 cases that is based on Rhetorical Frame Analysis of leaders on both sides for a period of 4 months prior and following the examined behaviours. The analysis shows that rhetoric precedes strategic and tactical changes in conflict dynamics, for both the strong and the weaker parties in conflict. As such I show how rhetoric can predict movement towards cooperation and away from contention in prolonged conflict transformation processes.
