Conflict resolution in practice

A recent conference at Nipissing University hosted in partnership with CIAAN instigated a discussion into conflict resolution and the possibility of translating individually-based resolution strategies into the context on international armed conflict.

When the subject of conflict resolution and prevention is breached it is often in the context of international armed conflict. A most apt example would be the Gaza conflict--a timely topic on everyone's mind at the moment. A conflict that has raged on for many years, culminating in violent acts, murders, and threats, is certainly one definition of conflict itself. On the other hand, conflict can be far less bloody and yet equally dangerous to the individual. Given this, it is pertinent for us to understand what we mean when we speak of conflict. Further, it incites a need for us to understand how conflicts can be effectively managed in order to not cause more harm.

Conflict, commonly understood, occurs when individuals or parties perceive that, as a consequence of a given disagreement, there is a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. Conflict  then, does not necessarily exclusively pertain to state/international bodies. Rather, conflict is an almost inherent part of the human experience. As such, could it be possible that the tools we use to resolve personal conflicts can be used to resolves ones of an international/transnational nature? More succinctly put: can conflict resolution practices utilized in personal conflict situation translate into an international context?

In the 1970s Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann identified five main styles of dealing with conflict that vary in their degrees of cooperativeness and assertiveness. They argued that people typically have a preferred conflict resolution style. However they also noted that different styles were most useful in different situations. They developed the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) which helps you to identify which style you tend towards when conflict arises.

Thomas and Kilmann's styles are:

Competitive: People who tend towards a competitive style take a firm stand, and know what they want. situations.
Collaborative: People tending towards a collaborative style try to meet the needs of all people involved.
Compromising: People who prefer a compromising style try to find a solution that will at least partially satisfy everyone.
Accommodating: This style indicates a willingness to meet the needs of others at the expense of the person's own needs.
Avoiding: People tending towards this style seek to evade the conflict entirely.

The idea behind this theory is that once you understand the different styles, you can use them to think about the most appropriate approach (or mixture of approaches) for the situation you're in. You can also think about your own instinctive approach, and learn how you need to change this if necessary.

Ideally you can adopt an approach that meets the situation, resolves the problem, respects people's legitimate interests, and mends damaged working relationships.

This is not the only way to approach conflict resolution, though. Conflict resolution often must be sensitive to culture. In homogenous cultural contexts, successful conflict resolution usually involves fostering communication among disputants, problem solving, and drafting agreements that meet their underlying needs. In these situations, conflict resolvers often talk about finding a mutually satisfying solution for everyone involved. However, in heterogenous cultural context this approach may be ineffective. Indeed, it is still important to find "win-win" solutions but the process of finding that solution is a little more rocky. In these contexts, direct communication between disputants that explicitly addresses the issues at stake in the conflict can be perceived as very rude, making the conflict worse and delaying resolution. Rather, it can make sense to involve religious, tribal or community leaders, communicate difficult truths indirectly through a third party, and make suggestions through narratives and the like. 

Now, the idea that such processes can translate into a broader, international context is contentious. Groups like our partners at CIAAN operate under the assumption that mediatory activities and communication can lead to peaceful resolution in the context of violent conflict, but their results have been mixed. 

It is a question that then must be left open to experience to answer. Mediation certainly seems helpful, and many scholars and practitioners would agree that it preferable to the alternative. This is not to suggest that every intractable conflict can be mediated. Many conflicts may be too intense, the parties too entrenched and the behaviour too violent for any mediator to achieve any desirable outcome. In many cases, a conflict only ceases to become intractable when there is a major systemic change. How then can we distinguish between conflicts that can be mediated and those that cannot? When should mediators enter an intractable conflict?

These questions have been answered in many different ways in the past. Jacob Bercovitch, a professor of international relations in the Political Science Department at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, offers a very helpful list to understand which conflicts can be mediated and when mediators are appropriate, cited below. But this list is certainly not the only perspective offered on the subject. 

We are interested to know what you think on the subject. Is mediation the answer? And, can we use the same tools that we use for personal conflict in the context of international armed conflict? 






1. Mediators can engage in an intractable conflict only after a thorough and complete analysis of the conflict, issues at stake, context and dynamics, parties' grievances, etc. Intractable conflicts are complex and multi-layered. A mediation initiative is more likely to be successful if it is predicated on knowledge and understanding rather than on good intentions only. A good analysis and a thorough understanding of all aspects of the conflict are important prerequisites for successful mediation in intractable conflicts.
2. Mediation must take place at an optimal or ripe moment. Early mediation may be premature and late mediation may face too many obstacles. A ripe moment describes a phase in the life cycle of the conflict where the parties feel exhausted and hurt, or where they may not wish to countenance any further losses and are prepared to commit to a settlement, or at least believe one to be possible. In destructive and escalating conflicts, mediation can have any chance of success only if it can capture a particular moment when the adversaries, for a variety of reasons, appear most amenable to change. Timing of intervention in an intractable conflict is an issue of crucial importance, and one that must be properly assessed by any would be mediator.
3. Given the nature and complexity of intractable conflicts, successful mediation requires a co-ordinated approach between different aspects of intervention. Mediation here requires leverage and resources to nudge the parties toward a settlement, but also acute psychological understanding of the parties' feelings and grievances. The kind of mediation we are talking about here is mediation that is embedded in various disciplinary frameworks, ranging from problem-solving workshops to more traditional diplomatic methods. No one aspect or form of behavior will suffice to turn an intractable conflict around. Diverse and complementary methods, an interdisciplinary focus, and a full range of intervention methods responding to the many concerns and fears of the adversaries, are required to achieve some accommodation between parties in an intractable conflict.
4. Mediating intractable conflicts require commitment, resources, persistence, and experience. Mediators of high rank or prestige are more likely to possess these attributes and thus are more likely to be successful in intractable conflicts. Such mediators have the capacity to appeal directly to the domestic constituency and build up support for some peace agreement. Influential, high ranking or prestigious mediators have more at stake, can marshal more resources, have better information, and can devote more time to an intractable conflict. Such mediators can work toward achieving some visible signs of progress in the short term, and identify steps that need to be taken to deal with the issues of a longer term peace objectives. Influential mediators can work better within the constraints of intractable conflicts, and more likely to elicit accommodative responses from the adversaries.
5. Mediation in intractable conflicts is more likely to be successful when there are recognizable leaders within each party, where the leaders are accepted as legitimate by all concerned, and where they have considerable control over their territory. An intractable conflict between parties with competing leaders and constituents (e.g. Northern Ireland) can prove very difficult to deal with. Where there are recognizable leaders, each from the mainstream of their respective community, and where each embodies the aspirations and expectations of their respective community, provides mediators with individuals who may have a serious impact on official diplomacy. Where there are competing leadership factions, state institutions, and governance capacity are all too uncertain, and the chances of successful mediation decline sharply.
6. Mediation in intractable conflicts is more likely to be effective if there are no sections in each community committed to the continuation of violence. Such parties are usually described as spoilers. Spoilers in such a context have much to lose from a peaceful outcome and much to gain from the continuation of violence. Their presence and activities constitute a major obstacle to any mediation effort.
7. Where an intractable conflict involves a major power, or major powers have interests (vital or otherwise) at stake, it is very unlikely that mediation will be attempted, and if attempted, very unlikely that it will succeed. The involvement of major powers in any capacity in an intractable conflict poses too serious a constraint on any mediation effort. A major power involvement in an intractable conflict provides a clear indication of the difficulty of initiating any form of mediation.

taken from: http://beyondintractability.colorado.edu/essay/med_intractable_conflict/?nid=1295

Virtually Campaigning for Peace

Here at NUPRI we'v just kicked off our Post-Its for peace campaign. Here's the idea: grab a sticky note, write down what comes to mind when you hear the word "Peace", stick it up in an unexpected place, snap a picture, upload it to our Facebook page or onto twitter (@NUPRIPeaceAgent).

In the world of online networking and virtual fundraising/awareness campaigns it is important to consider the effectiveness of virtual communication in building meaningful, reciprocal relationships. At the same time, however, we begin to question the necessity of meaningful reciprocal relationships when virtual fundraising and awareness campaigns are so seemingly effective in the absence of mutual trust and reciprocity.

We would like to know what you have to say about virtual relationships. Can we foster peace via the web? Or is any peace that we achieve virtually non-transferable to concrete reality?

Thanks for reading!

Peace,


the NUPRI team

Guerilla Peace

Ben Hoffman, PhD, the director of CIIAN and author of the Guerilla Peace Handbook writes that peace-building must be pursued with the same vigor and tenacity that guerilla fighters use to achieve their goals. The peace guerilla must "wage peace"at the grassroots level, as well as on a larger scale in order to prevent violence and promote immediate and sustainable peace.

In October (the 12th, to be precise) Ben Hoffman will be at Nipissing University's Muskoka Campus to discuss what we can do to promote peace at home and abroad in his presentation entitled "From Bracebridge to Bagdad". Leading up to this even we find it pertinent to begin a more in depth discussion of what exactly peace is in our own specific contexts and in the context of the broader spectrum of reality--whether it be peace in the community, peace on a national scale or global peace. And once we know what peace is (or at least have some sort of individualized operational definition), how can we seek to promote or, as Ben Hoffman puts it, wage peace at these different levels.

So, what would it mean to be a guerilla fighter for peace?

In the Peace Guerilla Handbook, Hoffman explains why he uses the term "guerilla" to describe wagers of peace. He writes that the peace guerilla differs from the war guerilla in objective only. Their tactics must be similar - the guerilla must operate often in secret ways, using limited resources to achieve their goal through strategic thinking and collaboration. The waging of peace is, similar to guerilla warfare, a coordinated effort of subversive tactics to get at the root of the problem - to seek out those things which are obstructing peace and eliminate them.

We want to know what you think? Can and should peace be pursued in this manner? If not, why not?

NUPRI at Piebird B&B: Nature and Peace

Human beings, as far as I can tell, tend to find a great deal of peace in nature. In fact, I would even go so far as to say this little tidbit is indisputable. But why is it that we find so much peace in nature?

Last week NUPRI went on the road and visited Piebird Bed and Breakfast, owned and operated by a lovely couple, Yan and Sherry. As soon as you step onto their property you are struck by the beauty and the peacefulness of their lifestyle. Yan and Sherry are Vegan animal lovers who grow most of their own food (this includes the food they feed to their B&B guests) and live with and care for a herd of goats, some chickens and some very happy cats. 

We asked them why they think that people feel at peace at Piebird and the answers they gave resonated with beautiful truth. The land, they explained, has a sort of magnetism. Nature is a vibration. We are connected to the earth. The land is happy and it attracts happy people. 

Is this the case? We are certainly from nature, originally. But for the most part, human beings are no longer of nature, so to speak. If we find so much peace in nature, if we are meant to live alongside nature, then why have human beings spent so many centuries and put so much effort into building homes that protect us and shield us from nature? Why do we live in 'concrete jungles'? Why do we cut down trees just to grind them up and glue them back together to form furniture and paper and disposable cups? 

These are the questions that we at NUPRI are ruminating on this week as we reflect upon our time at Piebird with Yan and Sherry and their animal friends. 

Here are some clips from the interview, so you can ruminate on them too:

Peace,

NUPRI

NUPRI Funnies!

Nipissing Universitiy Peace Research Initiative's first NUPRI Funny - Nupri Fun Facts #1

Enjoy and share!

Peace and Conflict

An interview with Metta Spencer, a woman long active in the peace-building field, inspired a discussion about peace and conflict. It is common for us to say that where there is conflict there can not be peace. Of course, we are not talking about armed conflict here -- it does seem to go without saying that armed conflict and peace can not coexist. We are, however, discussing conflict in the sense of disagreement, of argument, of debate.

For some of our Agents of Peace it is clear that conflict of this kind can not lead to peace; for example, Frankie James, an environmentalist, writer and artist, argues that Canada is in a state of conflict, especially over the oil sands and environmental protection, and that Canada is not, therefore, a peaceful country. However, even here we see Frankie James insisting that despite this conflict, the existence of a third party with representatives from every interest group could mediate these conflicts and indeed lead to a more peaceful society. So, perhaps she does not mean that conflict can not exist if a society is to be peaceful; rather, a society must deal with its conflict in an organized and all-encompassing manner.

But, to the question at hand, can conflict and peace coexist? Does conflict necessarily make a society less peaceful? Metta Spencer tells us that she can not imagine a society without conflict, and in fact she does not have any desire to. Conflict, for Metta, is essential. Without conflict, life would be boring.

Indeed, we can all see why this would be true. Perhaps we are geared towards conflict. Perhaps it is in our nature. Dr. Ian McKay tells us, and Ben Hoffman (author of the Guerilla Peace Handbook) agrees, that peace is the natural state of being for humans. So, why do we seek out conflict?

There is some suspicion that while peace is the natural state of being for humans, it is not the "peace of the graveyard", in Kant's words, that we are seeking. Rather it may be that the peace we seek is one that allows for conflict and disagreement and constant moving forward. Human beings exist in action. As Aristotle explains, the human being lives to act and all virtue is grounded in action. One can not simply study peace and the ways of peace and then find that they have mastered it. Rather, peace is something that must be worked for and towards and that when achieved does not lead to inaction.

Somewhat in line with Aristotle, Chantal Mouffe, in On the Political, discusses politics as a discipline of action. She is advocates for a society which transforms naturally occurring antagonisms into agonism. The “political” for Mouffe necessarily encompasses a struggle whereby contesting groups with opposing interests compete for hegemony. Rather than being the rational conversation of modern liberalism, politics involves a battle where a recognizable “we” fight against a likewise identifiable “they.” Mouffe scorns the pervasive idea in post-Cold War political theory which sees actors existing in a post-political world. The ignorance of antagonism can not lead to peace -- in other words, you can not fix what you think is not broken. Mouffe insists that, an agonistic model will actually lead to a more safe and peaceful society, is in part because competing parties are allows an arena in which to discuss their differences. Mouffe argues for a pluralism that recognizes real difference, while ensuring that every player is subject to the same set of rules.  


Is this type of politics of peace plausible? Can we find peace by recognizing difference, embracing conflict? What would a society like this looks like?


We would love to know what you have to say. 


Peace,


NUPRI
 

To listen to the interviews with Ian McKay, Metta Spencer and Frankie James, visit us on Vimeo.

Speaking Truth to Power

I have been thinking a lot about the idea of speaking truth to power. Inspired by an interview I did with Dr. Susan Roll of St. Paul University in Ottawa, I began looking into the actions of individuals in times of war who were willing to stand up for their beliefs in spite of great threat to their lives and livelihoods for doing so.

A poignant example of someone who spoke truth to power is Sophie Scholl. Susan Roll wrote and presented a paper on this incredible young White Rose member for a conference on Women as Peacemakers last November.

Sophie Scholl, a 21 year old German woman, along with other member of the White Rose movement in Germany (which included her school friends, her brother and many others), created leaflets outlining the many lies told by the German government regarding its actions overseas, particularly their treatment of Jewish peoples in Poland. In many cases the leaflets began "as you already know...".

Sophie and her friends were saying something that everyone already knew, but they were willing to say it out loud--something that the majority of German (and indeed Global) society feared doing.

Sophie was executed for her involvement in the White Rose in February of 1943. Before her death she was cited as saying, "So many people have died for this war. It's about time somebody died against it."

But Speaking Truth to Power does not necessarily have to be done at risk to one's life. Regardless of the circumstances, it is often very difficult to speak the truth--for fear of resentment, for fear of offending someone, for fear of exclusion. As Susan Roll told me in our interview in November "some truths are too important to be polite about".

So, can speaking Truth to Power lead to a more peaceful society. Certainly we in Canada see our ability and right to free association, to protest, to vote, as key in maintaining a peaceful society. But what of a country that seen as such an embodiment of peaceful society culture? Is speaking truth to power in the United States seen as peace-producing/maintaining? What about Israel? What about North Korea?

In fact, even in the time of the Shoah, those who spoke truth to power faced death, or worse (and yes, there are worse things). Sophie died because she stood up for what she believed in. Is this the way to peace?

Surely there are more subversive ways to attain peace that do not put lives at risk.

But if lives are already at risk, then what is one life against thousands?

What do you think? Must we always speak truth to power? Are some truths too important to be polite about?

And can speaking truth to power lead to peace?