Peace Building And Co-Existence Between Hutus And Tutsis

15

Peace Building and Co-existence between Hutus and Tutsis.

Student’s Name:

Institution:

Instructor:

Date:

Peace building and co-existence between Hutus and Tutsis

Introduction.

The civil war and the genocide that occurred in Rwanda is considered to be a manifestation of class divisions and stratifications of the society that are deeply rooted. These were later expressed and manipulated through the constructed identities of the Tutsi and the Hutu people. Among the factors that resulted in the outbreak of the conflict are socio economic class divisions, high levels of poverty, population, the scarcity of viable arable land, and the existence of a central government. On 1994, there was widespread violence throughout the country that fueled what to date is the worst case of genocide ever since the Second World War. An estimated 500,000-1,000,000 innocent civilian Tutsis and a moderate number of Hutus were murdered in the first wave of violence (Carney, 2017). The cause of the genocide is traced back to the year 1990 when President Juvenal Habyarimana who was a Hutu began using anti Tutsi rhetoric so that he could consolidate his power among the Hutu people (Carney, 2017). Already in the 1990, there were already waves of attacks against the Tutsis. The two ethnic groups were very similar and they had a shared culture and language but the government required registration based upon ethnicities. The government and army had thus begun to prepare for the elimination of the Tutsis by arming the Hutus with guns and machetes. April 6, 1994 saw the plane of President Habyarimana shot down (Carney, 2017). Whether it was by a Tutsi military organization or by Hutu extremists, it instigated the widespread massacre of the Tutsi people hours following the clash.

Main Actors in the conflict.

The two main actors in the conflict are:

1. The majority group of Hutus.

2. The minority group of Tutsis.

The split that occurred between the Hutus and the Tutsis was mostly founded upon economic reasons. The Hutus were farmers while the Tutsis were herdsmen. A majority of the people in the country however were Hutus and the economic designation of each people gradually came to stand out as divisions of class and as ethnic designations. Cattle were considered by the colonizers to be far more valuable than crops thus the Tutsis were considered by the colonizers first the Germans then the Belgians to be elite (Carney, 2017). The Belgians took over Rwanda in 1917 and by then Tutsi elite had been a ruling monarchy for a considerable length of time. The rule of the colonizers made the lines between the Hutus and the Tutsis to be even more distinct as they required all the local chieftain posts to be held by Tutsis (Carney, 2017). The minority Tutsi were thus turned into a symbol of colonial power.

Following the independence of Rwanda, the resentment that the Hutu had bred against the Tutsis turned into violence. The Hutus were a majority in the country thus they easily won the election and formed the government of Independent Rwanda. However, there were frequent cases of outbreak of violence between the two groups. The Rwandan genocide was thus a directed and pre-meditated attempt to eliminate an entire minority people for perceived errors in the colonial era (Carney, 2017).

Key Issues Resulting in Conflict.

Economic factors.

Economic factors are essential in shaping and worsening the effects and also the extent to which a genocide is carried out. There are four socio-economic factors that shaped the extent to which the genocide spread. First, there was a drop in the prices of coffee in the global market that was accompanied by the devaluation of currency and the inflation of the 1990 (Ordóñez-Carabaño & Prieto-Ursúa, 2021). The Hutus, being farmers, were dependent upon funds that were accrued from the exporting of coffee to the global market. The drop in the prices of coffee thus resulted in poorer economic conditions. The second factor was a structural adjustment program in the sale of coffee that was accompanied by droughts in the southern region that turned into famines (Ordóñez-Carabaño & Prieto-Ursúa, 2021). The drought thus decreased the output of coffee and the famine resulted in the lack of sufficient food supply for the entire nation. The third factor was the outbreak of the war that also drained the resources of the government and it resulted in the creation of refugee camps to the North of Kigali. Finally, there is the paradox of democratization of Africa (Ordóñez-Carabaño & Prieto-Ursúa, 2021). The democratically elected government of the republic was facing opposition within the country though it was already embattled.

Cultural Factors

In Rwanda, the terms Hutus and Tutsis refer to more than just ethnic groups; the two terms are constructs that refer to constructed categories that represented different socio-economic position in the Rwandan society. Since the time when the two groups first settled in Rwanda, they had shared resources and engaged in intermarrying (Ordóñez-Carabaño & Prieto-Ursúa, 2021). It is thus uncalled for to suppose that there could be a pure divide in terms of race between them that could be a basis of war. The Belgian reform of the colonial state is what resulted in the reformation of the two tribes with the Hutus being ancient Bantus while the Tutsis were foreign Hamites. The Hamitic hypothesis is posed as a way pf explaining away every aspect of civilization in Africa as being as a result of western influence (Ordóñez-Carabaño & Prieto-Ursúa, 2021). The Hutu and the Tutsis were thus political identities to which the origin of violence can be traced. The genocide in Rwanda was not as a result of two tribes that were fighting as a result of the hatred that they harbored towards each other that would later erupt into irrational violence. It was a planned attack by a group in cahoots with the then president, Habyarimana, who was not pen to sharing his state mandates with members of Tutsi ethicality. In the case of Rwanda however, it was a class war, a conflict of classes that was minutely prepared and which later escalated along the pre-prepared lines.

Environmental Factors.

Environmental factors also contributed towards the eventual outbreak of the genocide in the country. Rwanda is a small country whose population grew from 1.887 million in the year 1948 to more than 7.5 million in the year 1992 (Moodley, Gahima & Munien, 2018). It was among the most densely populated locations in the entire continent with 300-400 people per square kilometer. The challenge of overpopulation and the challenge of poverty were escalating the problems of ethnic tensions. Growth in population resulted in an increased number of subdivision of land among the members of the family thus the amount that was sufficient for subsistence farming decreased (Moodley, Gahima & Munien, 2018). A majority of the people were left landless and unemployed; they had no source of income. It was easy to call for the killing of the Tutsis with the main incentive being that the Hutus would acquire their land and property. Land was thus a primary factor that was to contribute to the breakout of violence as the Hutus attempted to be rewarded through land for the slaughter of their neighbors the Tutsis (Moodley, Gahima & Munien, 2018). Other factors that contributed to the violence but which are bound to land include government limiting the sale of land, freedom of movement, labor opportunities and mismanagement of conflict.

Social political factors.

The focus of the project is upon the social political factors that contributed to the outbreak of the genocide. The interest of the Tutsis and the Hutus is to live together in harmony in the same land. They want to prioritize the coexistence. They want to continue sharing their culture. It is what they have been doing for hundreds of years prior to colonization and prior to the formation of any sort of centralized government (Taylor, 2019). The Hutu farmers were as dependent on the Tutsi traders as much as the traders’ dependence on them is portrayed. Prior to division by the white people and the establishment of the Tutsi as Hamites, the two communities shared culture and intermarriages were common. The language of the two is also not very distinct showing a people that were united. The interest of both communities would thus be to return their relations to the state in which they were prior to colonization.

There is no common cause that is recognized as resulting in cases of genocide; all instances are dependent upon the background of each country. It is also dependent upon the perpetrator’s definition of the group and the people that are attributed with a certain group. On the Asian Continent, the context upon which genocide occurred was dependent upon communism as a sociopolitical and also as an economic doctrine (Taylor, 2019). It was mostly evident in Cambodia and China. The leaders if the Khmer Lounge in Cambodia combined a mix of extremist ideology and ethnic animosity resulting in disregard of the life of humanity which led to wanton killings on a large scale and misery. In Africa, the strategies of dividing people and the use of genocide in colonies was applied so as to gain economic and political power by the colonialists.

The genocide in Rwanda was carefully orchestrated so that so that the Hutu and the Tutsi could annihilate each other and especially the members of the population disagreeing with extreme politics. Genocide was rooted much more deeply to be just attributed to ethnic differences between two people that had previously coexisted in peace (Taylor, 2019). The main cause are viewed as being socio-political; the manipulation of the people both during and after the colonialists had left the country. Genocide was as a result of internal and external forces that were at play to take advantage of the country. Prior to independence, the history of the country was manipulated by Western colonizers and after independence, the formation of a weak government as well as the failing of democracy within the country. The genocide was further facilitated by the indifference of the international community and westerners who were backing different fighting factions.

Goal of the project.

The goal is to manage peace achievement between Hutus and Tutsi in order to co-exist and cohabit together by promoting tolerance, forgiveness and better understanding. In this way to avoid another conflict. Conflicts eventually lead to destruction but also, conflict is an inescapable reality of human life, an aspect of our humanity. In the first half of the 20th century, Europe is an example of a continent that was boiled in never ending conflict as it experienced two world wars and was made up of totalitarian regimes. However, in the second half of the century, there was the creation of continental trade blocs such as the European Economic Community and the European Union (Ibreck, 2017). The result has been a continent that is far more prosperous and far more advanced in spite of the amount of destruction that they inflicted upon each other.

The Rwandan conflict too is an example of an embittered conflict between two people; between two social groups found within a country. In line with the Hamitic theory, the Rwanda political social and economic organization were all based upon the Tutsis (Ibreck, 2017). Though the minority group, the Tutsis are seen as the well-off invaders whose distant relatives claim a Eurasian origin. The Hutus thus submitted to the Tutsis who though they were few in number were rulers and were well off. The conflict in Rwanda is thus mostly an identity conflict whereby there is a group of people that are utterly convinced that the existence of another group threatens their existence (Ibreck, 2017). It is a sort of conflict that breaks out between communities that have previously coexisted but then differences are sowed between them along distinctions of their identity. The discord in Rwanda was sowed along the lines of ethnicities, territories, languages, religions and culture. The last decade of the 20th century was the most turbulent Rwanda has ever experienced in its history. The country was ravaged by civil war, genocide, mass migration, economic crisis, diseases, return of refugees and environmental destruction. Rwandan families were affected and are still dealing with impacts such as death, disease, disability, poverty, loss of dignity and rather need coexistence and cohabitation. In working on this project, the goal is thus to research how peace can be established between the two different factions (Ibreck, 2017). The goal is to come up with a way that can be applied that would acknowledge the difference between the two classes while at the same time making for a society that would be ultimately more peaceful.

Second-Track/Citizen Diplomacy initiatives

In the resolution of conflicts, there are intermediaries; people who become involved in the conflict. They are not considered to be part of the dispute but rather, they are people who are attempting to work with the disputing parties so that they can help them to resolve the conflict successfully and to transform it and to overall lessen the negative impact. At times, these intermediaries make formal efforts and are officially termed as professional meditators, arbitrators, judges, or negotiators (Dayton, 2021). In most cases however, the negotiators are people who are unofficially appointed and who hold the negotiations outside of the official tracks. They are unofficial third parties who intervene to help the arguing parties to work out their differences. When viewed on the international or the communal scale the term that is used to define this approach to conflict resolution is track two democracy or citizen diplomacy. Other terms that are used in describing this approach to conflict resolution is multitrack diplomacy, supplemental diplomacy, interactive conflict democracy, and back channel diplomacy.

The goal of citizen democracy initiatives is the creation of a low key environment that is non-biased and safe and which can be used to explore the ideas upon which a peaceful resolution of a disagreement can be attained. The participants in the exercise are expected to feel free enough to the extent that they can express their fears and their desires and further, ideas concerning the resolution of a conflict can be aired free from the restraints of the government. As a result, citizen democracy initiatives result in the development of mutual understandings of the different needs and the perceptions of different people (Dayton, 2021). Further, new ideas are brainstormed and there is the formation of strong, problem solving relations. Informal intermediaries are non-governmental actors such as religious institutions or individuals facilitating discussions.

In using the approach of citizen diplomacy approach in Rwanda, there are a number of advantages that will be enjoyed. Overcoming discrimination and prejudice is one of the associated advantages. One of the reasons why the conflicts between the Hutus and the Tutsi still persist is as a result of discrimination and prejudice between the meditating bodies. Meditating bodies have a vested interest on the potential resources of the country (Dayton, 2021). As a result, the mediator will favor the side that they feel will best help them to achieve their ultimate goals should peace be attained. Further, the causes of the conflict have been prejudged with some people biased against the Hutus while others are against the Tutsis. These factors make it difficult for any formal negotiation to occur. An informal discussion between the two parties would however surmount these barriers.

There are certain social expectation and lines along which members of both communities are expected to formally work. Avoiding social barriers would be an advantage that would be associated with being involved in an informal discussion. Out of the public eye, there would be no façade that the representatives of each community would be expected to uphold. As a result, it becomes easier to facilitate an open discussion. Another advantage would be changing the perception and the stereotypes both community members hold about each other. Most of the issues that community members hold each other responsible for are not even existent. For example, the perception that the Tutsis are better off that the Hutus is misguided. The most significant change can thus be attributed to changing the perception of either party to viewing each other as the enemy. The enemy image is a tool used by politician to mobilize resources as well as to facilitate unwarranted and unjustified violence towards a particular group of people (Dayton, 2021). The informal approach will give parties a chance to clarify misinformation for both parties, explain perceptions and decisions and thus develop a sense of empathy for the decisions of each people.

The ground rules, structures and the venues selected also Build teamwork and communication skills for the negotiating parties. As the intermediation is unofficial, the participants are able to swap personal stories and to narrate their experiences. The conflict is analyzed from a structural point of view. There is a chance to dig deeper than the superficial positions held over the societies so as to get more in depth understanding of factors such as interests, needs, fears, priorities, and the concerns of both parties (Dayton, 2021). With communication, the participants can become aware of how their language breeds conflict and mistrust because of how it is perceived by the other parties. A de-escalating language can thus be developed and this can be applied in more effective solution of problems at hand and to overcome barriers to communication and resolution.

The transformation of attitudes is tied to establishment of deep relations and mutual trust among participants unofficially. The end outcome of this is strengthening tolerance and forgiveness between both parties. Dining with the enemy at breakfast and later hitting the same bars in the evening is an effective way of saying that they share the same problem (Dayton, 2021). Contact between the people is re-humanized upon the realization of shared fears, needs and concerns. The formation of these personal relationships is important in the process of getting the leaders to develop tolerance towards each other and come up with ways of dealing with hurdles in other aspects of their relationships.

The final advantage of citizen advocacy is finding commonalties among the participants. In all the advantages that have been listed, what has been key is bringing the two parties together in an informal setting so that they can air out their grievances to each other. The advantage that is accrued from this is that it becomes easier to find common ground between the two parties that are in conflict (Dayton, 2021). With the establishment of common ground, it is easier to negotiate terms upon which peace shall be founded and to which both parties will agree. Citizen democracy will result in solid and viable solutions upon which the government can found its policies and ensure that the progresses that will be made in terms of peace will never be reversed. These initiatives can be the way of ensuring that Rwanda will never sink into a genocide again.

Actions Constituting Project Activities.

Psychological help of concerns

There are many psychological issues that underlie the cases of violence between the Hutus and the Tutsis. Any attempt to address the discord between the Hutu and the Tutsis would be rendered moot if the underlying psychological factors were not to be addressed. As a result, one of the appropriate courses of actions is seeking out psychological help for those afflicted by the conflict. Psychological help would be the first in the healing process of the nation (Ibreck, 2017).

Trust building activities.

For the people to be able to peacefully co-exist again, there will require to be rebuilding of trust between them. The people need to know that they can trust each other again. These will be achieved through participation in joint activities for both parties. Teams should be created whose members will be from across the racial divide. The goal is to re-establish the feelings of trust that exist between the two parties with the interest of fostering and growing it.

Mediation training

The leaders that attend the events should be trained in mediation of conflicts. The leaders should become adept at mediation so that they can deal with conflicts that occur at the community level. Training should be done through offering seminars and workshops that are focused upon conflict resolution. The goal is to avoid further outbreak in conflict but where conflict breaks out, it is important to have the skills to resolve it. Upon solving the qualms between community leaders, it is essential to ensure that they will be able to solve any qualms that may exist between the members of their communities. By so doing, there will be strictures in place to address future conflict outbreak.

Training on intercultural, communication and co-existence

The two fighting groups have to be taught how to co-exist and how to relate inter-culturally and communicate. Both of these ethnicities are citizens of Rwanda and they need to learn how to live and communicate together. As a result, the leaders will be trained on how to teach them the skills of co-existence and communication (Ibreck, 2017). There is the need to establish a national language that can be used by all parties without necessarily escalating conflict or which all people will identify with. It will be the basis of the formation of a national identity that citizens of the can then use as a basis of their intercultural communication and existence.

Lectures on conflict escalation and de-escalation

In the case of a breakout, the leaders will be taught the necessary language to use so as to de-escalate it. Language is an important tool in conflict resolution especially where heated arguments are occurring. The rights words at the right time make the difference between blows and the wrong words would only make issues worse (Ibreck, 2017). A one week seminar with both groups outside Kigali would be essential in teaching these skills.

There is nothing that drives the message home more than knowing what the fight is against. A visit to the Kigali Genocide Museum would be a reminder of the darkness the country went through and what it is attempting to prevent from ever occurring again.

References.

Carney, J. J. (2017). Beyond tribalism: The Hutu-Tutsi question and Catholic rhetoric in colonial Rwanda. Journal of Religion in Africa, 42(2), 172-202.

Dayton, B. W. (2021). Track Two Diplomacy and the Transfer of Peacebuilding Capacity. In Transnational Transfers and Global Development (pp. 167-181). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Ibreck, R. (2017). The politics of mourning: Survivor contributions to memorials in post-genocide Rwanda. Memory Studies, 3(4), 330-343.

Moodley, V., Gahima, A., & Munien, S. (2018). Environmental causes and impacts of the genocide in Rwanda: Case studies of the towns of Butare and Cyangugu. African Journal on Conflict Resolution, 10(2).

Ordóñez-Carabaño, Á., & Prieto-Ursúa, M. (2021). Forgiving a genocide: Reconciliation processes between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 52(5), 427-448.

Taylor, C. C. (2019). A gendered genocide: Tutsi women and Hutu extremists in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. PoLAR, 22, 42.

,

MULTY TRACK DIPLOMACY

FINAL PROJECT

1. Which conflict I would like to deal with in my final project?

The paper will deal with the civil war between the Hutu and the Tutsi in Rwanda.

The title of my project is:

Peace building and co-existence between Hutus and Tutsis

2. Who are the main actors in the conflict? What are their perception of each other?

– The main actors in the conflict are:

I. The majority group of Hutus

II. The minority group of Tutsis

3.What are the key issues of the conflict?

· Social-political

· Economy

· Environmental factors

· Cultural

4.Which of them my project is going to deal with?

I want to deal in my project with the Social-political

5.What are the interests of the sides regarding the chosen issues?

The interest of the Tutsis and the Hutus is to live together in harmony in the same land. They want to prioritize the coexistence. They want to continue sharing their culture.

6.Why my project is necessary/important? Answering this question, formulate the goal of your project.

The last decade of the 20th century was the most turbulent Rwanda has ever experienced in its history. The country was ravaged by civil war, genocide, mass migration, economic crisis, diseases, return of refugees and environmental destruction. Rwandan families were affected and are still dealing with impacts such as death, disease, disability, poverty, loss of dignity and rather need coexistence and cohabitation.

The goal is to manage peace achievement between Hutus and Tutsi in order to co-exist and cohabit together by promoting tolerance, forgiveness and better understanding. In this way to avoid another conflict.

7.How, using Second-Track/Citizen Diplomacy initiatives, my project is going to achieve the goal?

The second track/citizen diplomacy in this project will achieve the goal of:

· Overcoming discrimination and prejudice,

· Avoiding social barriers’

· Changing perception and stereotype,

· Building teamwork and communication skills,

· Strengthening tolerance and forgiveness

· Finding commonalties among the participants

8.What are the actual steps/actions that will constitute the project activities?

· Psychological help of concerns

· Trust building activities

· Mediation training

· Seminar and lectures on conflict resolution

· Training on intercultural, communication and co-existence

· Team building on mediation

· Lectures on conflict escalation and de-escalation

· Trip to the Kigali genocide memorial museum

· One week seminar with both groups out of Rwanda

,

10

Toward Innovative Solutions

Edy Kaufman

Searching for Common Ground

In chapter 9, the focus was on preparing the Partners for applying principles and methods of collaborative problem solving. Only in the last two days did the Partners begin to address their own conflicts. Building on the trust and insights gained in the previous days, the Partners should now be ready to look for common ground and innovative solutions. We shall illustrate several consensus exercises on Day 6 and then focus in more depth on our preferred methodology, developed from Rothman’s (1997) “ARIA” approach.

The final phase of the workshop is concerned with preparations for the Partners’ reentry into their own communities; it covers some of the first post-workshop steps that are best done while participants are still together. By this time, they will have accumulated enough experience and skills to conduct an IPSW on their own and to involve themselves in conflict resolution in general.

Day 6: Consensus Exercises

Collaborative problem solving is based on the search for consensus as an alternative to enforced solutions or poor compromises. Consensus implies decision making that is based not on majority rule but rather on ensuring that everyone’s concerns are heard and dealt with before decisions are made. This means that all participants’ opinions must be given equal weight and consideration. Below are several types of consensus-seeking exercises that can be used to illustrate the approach.

Some Illustrations

Exercise 1: TOWS/FODA

TOWS/FODA (external Threats and Opportunities, internal Weaknesses and Strengths) is an instrument adapted at the University of Costa Rica for corporate training (FODA is the Spanish acronym). Participants are asked to brainstorm on a particular theme of shared concern (e.g., occupational career prospects for Costa Rican businesswomen), each person coming up with a list of difficulties and opportunities. They are then asked to prioritize the listed items according to their importance either as maximizing positive factors (opportunities and strengths) or as minimizing negative factors (threats and weaknesses). Each person turns to the participant on his/her right, takes his or her list and eliminates all but the top three choices. The same is done for those on the left. These choices are compiled, and the resulting shared list is the group’s consensus.

Exercise 2: Bridging the Gap

A current controversial issue that divides the group fairly evenly but not by community membership (such as capital punishment) is identified. Partners are asked to wear a tag corresponding to their beliefs (blue for yes, yellow for no) and to stand in two separate groups. The individuals from each group should then spend ten minutes in close proximity, trying to persuade those on the other side to change their views. At the end of the session, people who have changed their minds are asked to change their tags accordingly. Usually in this first phase none will.

Then the Partners are asked to find possible points of agreement and move toward a “lesser evil” alternative. A third division should be added for those who agree on a new alternative (such as “no capital punishment but mandatory life imprisonment without parole for more egregious offenders”). Participants finding themselves in this group then trade their yellow or blue tags for a green tag and place themselves in the middle of the two polarized groups. Others can remain where they originally were. The “greens” (mixture of blue and yellow) should now try for ten minutes to persuade others to join them by bringing up more new proposals (such as “voluntary preference for capital punishment or life imprison-ment accepted,” or “assassination of prison mate by former assassin punishable by death”).

The point is that when people are brought to a confrontation between two opposing positions, they tend to become more polarized than when asked to come up with alternative shared solutions.

A note to facilitators: In case the result is not as expected, one can discuss with the group whether they have used the negotiation skills that they have just learned. This game can be fascinating and take up much time, so facilitators should be careful to budget plenty of time for addressing the Partners’ own conflict. Shorter “competition versus cooperation” exercises include: placing people in a circle (or two) and asking them all to touch a ball as quickly as possible, the best strategy being not passing it around but for all to place a hand or even a finger on it at the same time; or, providing all with numbers and asking them to order themselves accordingly without talking, coordination once more being the way to succeed.

Exercise 3: Finding Minimal Common Denominators

In this exercise the two parties are asked to role-play themselves in their own conflict. They are given a well-known specific issue of divergence within their larger conflict (e.g., the Arab refugee problem for Israelis and Palestinians). Each team (1 and 2) should focus in a separate room for twenty minutes on finding at least five major concessions that they could live with, followed by a list of five (or more) bottom-line minimal demands to be expected from the other side, and write them on a flip chart.

The two sides are brought back together and asked to post their respective positions. If there is goodwill between the parties, it is to be expected that some points may overlap, but more often this is not the case. The Partners then split into two mixed teams (3 and 4), take the options offered by teams 1 and 2, and attempt to work out an accommodation over the next twenty minutes (again in separate rooms). The dynamics in Teams 3 and 4 in their desire to achieve results may provide a greater chance of success, and either one of these teams, or both, may come back with a shared resolution.

If the members of these teams still do not agree, we can introduce a process to promote more principled negotiation, guiding the Partners through consideration of situations elsewhere which are analogous to their own conflict. This technique has been used for work at CIDCM on three conflicts in the Transcaucasus involving separatist regions (Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh) calling for at least a large degree of autonomy, if not full independence. Lateral thinking led us to research the characteristics of existing independent microstates and to offer the Partners a summary of their attributes to stimulate new ideas for their own conflicts.

Later, in preparation for a workshop on the Transcaucasus that we conducted in Aland, Finland—one of the oldest and best examples of autonomy—our Partners researched similar cases elsewhere and identified a list of mutually agreed-on successful options, using Lapidoth’s (1997) systematic framework of autonomies. In a paper, “Diffusion of Power: Options for Societies in Transition,” we described the cases of three successful regions with substantial autonomy: the Aland Islands in Finland, the Generalitat of Cataluña in Spain, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the United States. We disaggregated the relevant agreements according to different functions: cultural, political (executive, legislative, judiciary), economic, religious, language, infrastructure, etc. We then asked the Partners as individuals to draw out the five preferred and five “lesser evil” attributes of possible solutions, reminding them again that they should take into account as much as possible the preferences of the other party to their conflict.

The expectation here is that the groups will produce a statement that will include attributes mentioned in the agreements that could represent principles shared by all the Caucasian Partners. This is easier to achieve than bilateral statements from the Partners to each of the three conflicts. More agreement was reached than anticipated, although the larger units (the states of Azerbaijan and Georgia) gave more concessions than the smaller units (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabakh). The Partners agreed on what became the First Regional Proclamation of Principles for Conflict Resolution in the Transcaucasus (now translated by them to all regional languages). Evaluation of this experiment is currently in progress.

Exercise 4: Unilateral Best Offers

In cases where one of the parties is domestically deeply divided and thus prevented from developing middle-ground propositions, the other side may design a best offer that “can’t be refused.” Given the confidential nature of our exercise and the nonbinding characteristics of our deliberations, there is nothing to lose if a tempting and generous proposition is made as a “trial balloon.” The Partners from the other party should be allowed time to consider it and eventually to join discussions on this basis, or based on a counteroffer triggered by the unilateral best offer. A problem-solving dialogue process similar to “laptop diplomacy” can now begin, with facilitators shuttling from team to team.

Preparations for ARIA

Rationale and Motivation

The approach we use most frequently to facilitate a transition by the parties from an adversarial stance in the conflict to an integrative one is the ARIA technique (Adversarial, Reflexive, Integrative, Action), developed by Jay Rothman (1997c). In this session, the Partners should be introduced to the concepts behind the approach and engaged in an exercise that illustrates how different approaches to conflict can result in different outcomes.

An Overview of ARIA

The first (adversarial or advocacy) phase focuses on the parties’ positions on the major issues in the conflict, bringing out what points each Partner would like to make on behalf of his/her nation or group. The second (reflexive) stage is meant to bring to the fore the underlying needs and interests of each party, and to answer the questions of why they hold the positions they do and why they stress these points over others in adversarial arguments. The needs that motivate such stances are thus identified. Once the motivations behind the formal positions of each party are understood, points of convergence become apparent (shared needs and compatible interests), providing a basis for the third (integrative) stage. At this time, both parties brainstorm together and look for consensual ideas. They elaborate jointly answers to the question of how to resolve the conflict or selected conflict issues and consider action steps for how these or other integrative ideas may be promoted.

In introducing ARIA to a group (mostly hydrologists) from riparian states with conflicting upstream/downstream interests, I used the following example. An egg has rolled down a hill to a neighboring farm, getting stuck in the dividing fence. At the adversarial level, the neighboring family declared that for years, any eggs that had rolled down the hill to its property were its own, and it had documents to prove it. The other family argued that the reason it had put up the fence in the first place was because its sloping land prevented it from keeping the eggs laid by the free-ranging hens. They argued that the neighbors had never taken possession of any egg, even if such right was granted in principle and embodied in a new constitution. The arguments led nowhere, and their pulling and pushing at the fence ended with fragile eggs being smashed. If the families had progressed from adversarial discourse to reflect why each needed the eggs, it might have become clear, for example, that one family was planning to use the yolk for mayonnaise, while the other was interested in the white for meringue. That would allow an integrative discussion on how to accomplish the separation of the elements, perhaps leading to new options for mutual benefit (e.g., the unused shells could be processed by both families to provide nutritive material for feed, which could then be marketed together). This represents an even better solution than a zero-sum compromise based on equally splitting the number of eggs.

Bill Ury uses a similar story about a fight over an orange, where the why exploration allowed the discovery that one side wanted its pulp for juice, the other its peel for jam. And if both parties wanted the juice, knowing why may help discovering that one is thirsty—hence best to give him cold water—and the other wanted vitamin C, which may be cheaper to buy in larger quantities while selling the juice. Most problems are more complex than this, but the lesson is a valid one. For example, in an integrative stage the two sides might go farther to address the longer-term needs of the parties. They might both decide to take the seeds that none need at the moment, plant them, and thus each acquire a steady supply of oranges in the future. A more complex scenario can be used to bring it closer to that faced by the Partners.

Day 7: ARIA—The Adversarial Stage

Motivation and Rationale

The adversarial phase should begin with a more detailed explanation of its specific dynamics (see Rothman, 1997c). In this phase, each party should aim to be persuasive, with lines of argument prepared and ready to be articulated firmly and clearly. This phase serves several functions: it makes clear what issues are in dispute and establishes the credibility of the participants as knowledgeable and effective spokespersons for their communities, who might also be effective in persuading their communities to consider new perspectives for resolving the conflict. It also makes clear that neither party can be talked into conceding on key issues, showing where they will stand firm, and making clear that Partners will need to move beyond adversarial habits to get results.

A note to facilitators: There is rarely any need to spend much time training the participants, since oppositional discourse has been the norm in most societies, particularly those with protracted conflicts. However, these norms are not universal. Some Japanese, Burmese and Thai participants we have worked with found it very difficult to articulate arguments in an adversarial manner. In such cases, some training in culturally appropriate advocacy skills may be beneficial. In all cases, organizers should consider the relevant norms for such discourse when planning a workshop and make sure there is a consensus among participants on culturally appropriate ground rules (e.g., no personal attacks or insults, no interruptions) that can be used in structuring this phase of the process.

The Adversarial Exercise

The facilitators should ensure that there is agreement among the Partners by this stage on the topic for discussion. It can be a specific issue dividing the parties within their larger conflict and of particular concern for the Partners (e.g., the status of refugees) or a simulated situation (e.g., a UN Security Council debate on contending complaints) relevant to their concerns. In any case the area of discussion should be clearly defined and agreed.

Facilitators should make clear that any premature shift to problem solving or proposing solutions at this stage will be inappropriate. Until there has been a clear definition of the problem and the points of firm disagreement between the parties, any discussion of solutions is likely to be unproductive. Agreement in second track diplomacy has little value in itself; if it does not fully address the real concerns of the communities, it is unlikely to elicit much interest at home.

Once the principles and ground rules are well understood and questions are answered by the facilitators, each side can be given twenty minutes to prepare its arguments and perhaps an order of presenters, including at least a “pilot” and “copilot” who will start up the discussion and take the lead as speakers until other members of the team feel comfortable participating.

We generally have the contending parties face each other for this exercise; if there are more than five or six representing each party, two chairs for each side are placed closer than the rest of the groups. The dialogue begins with the anchors’ opening statements one after the other, beginning with the party challenging the status quo, each talking for just a few minutes. After this there is open discussion, with the copilots joining in, and at any time the other partners may be asked to share in the debate. With larger groups, whenever a Partner wishes to say something, he/she should approach either of the two speaking members of their own team and tap his/her shoulder. That person should then yield the seat to the new speaker and join the rest of the group, returning as desired to speak again.

This lively process generally proceeds for at least thirty minutes, depending on the number of participants (all should be encouraged to take part) as well as the intensity and complexity of the discussion, with facilitators ensuring compliance with ground rules. There is no need to cut this part short, unless either the positions and points of difference are clear or (in the absence of contrary ground rules) it devolves into a shouting match, with both sides pointing fingers, using incriminatory “you” language, interrupting, or making critical remarks about the other. If the debate escalates in this manner, the facilitators may tell everyone to “freeze,” often at the point where fingers are being raised, and ask the Partners to evaluate the exercise.

In any case, at the end of the discussion a first assessment is made of what was learned from the process, focusing on the quality and content of the arguments presented. In preparation for a second round, with role reversal, the teams are asked to tell one another any significant points that were left out. There may also be a brief consideration of whether any adjustment of ground rules is desirable at this stage, remembering that what feels like welcome catharsis for some may preclude a good future working relationship for others. Any extended discussion of the value of this phase, however, should be left till after the second round.

Many useful insights can come out of this discussion, in addition to clarifying the positions, grievances and demands of the parties. Disputes over key historical points can be clarified (e.g., who occupied land in dispute when, who started the violence cycle, number of casualties, types of atrocities, or sequences of cause and effect). Issues of rights, law and morality can also be clarified, keeping in mind that the aim of this analysis is clarifying positions, not determining who is right or wrong.

At this point a second round should be organized in the same manner as the first, but with each side arguing the opposite party’s position. Often, there is resistance to representing the views of the other party, but since the rules of the game have been agreed in advance, the Partners should be able to overcome this natural aversion and proceed to defend their opponents’ arguments energetically. Several interesting developments should be readily apparent to the Partners. More often than not, they submit the most extreme positions of the other, either because they are less able to perceive more moderate arguments or because politically it is more expedient to portray the rival as extremist and resistant to compromise. The presenters tend to be more effective, or at least more uninhibited, pointed or critical of each other. This session can be tense, but it occasionally provokes laughter or a smile at the ability of one side to represent so accurately the excessive views of the other. The facilitators should maintain the seriousness of the simulation, however, intervening if necessary to ask for appropriate behavior within the agreed rules.

The debriefing and evaluation that follows the role reversal should include an analysis of the scope and limitations of the adversarial stage. It may also be instructive to discuss the verbal styles and body language used (facial expressions that convey anger, boredom or suspicion; tone and patterns of voice with high pitch, shouting; and posture and gestures, such as arms folded, eye contact). Similarly metaphors (quoting from holy texts or famous phrases), slogans (“blood on their hands”), and personal criticisms used in the heat of debate (“You don’t understand,” “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” “That’s not right”) should be noted. The use of phrases that imply total certainty (“of course,” “no doubt”) might be noted, and also the tendency to become repetitive (as with propaganda, or when Partners had run out of arguments but could not remain silent). Tendencies to interrupt might be noted, and instances when people disconnected, stopped listening and started preparing a response in the middle of another person’s turn. Assumptions may be defined as truth, and the other’s position dismissed a priori, showing a determination to be right at all costs. Advocacy of a position can lead one to restrict the argument to strong points or perhaps to resort to half-truths, unchecked figures, dates and “facts,” leaving the other side unable to respond with effective evidence to the contrary. Use of the term “you” categorizes the other camp as monolithic.

On the one hand, as evidenced by behaviors such as these, this phase often becomes a dialogue of the deaf and, as such, may only excite each side against the other, affirming preconceived points of view and closed-minded attitudes. On the other hand, this phase fulfills important functions, such as clarifying points of dispute, affirming Partners as committed and effective spokespersons for their communities, and demonstrating ways in which information and insights regarding the perspective of the other party may have been systematically shut out. There is often also a catharsis that occurs, allowing Partners to get out of their systems feelings of grief, frustration or anger that otherwise may hinder the Partners’ subsequent work together. It is often easier fully to hear and understand our adversaries once we have been able to verbalize our own convictions in front of them.

Above all, this initial encounter makes a statement and tables the long list of charges from which the Partners can now move in search for a better understanding of the conflict and for possible solutions. The participants can now actively attempt to explain their feelings and assess their attitudes toward the intrinsic value of this stage. Clearly, a common understanding is being sought, and although it may not provide any settlement, this stage is a necessary condition for moving into other stages that will bring the participants closer together. This debriefing should aim to verify that the Partners are not leaving the room alienated from each other. The hope is that having played each other’s roles, the Partners feel closer by verbalizing the subjective truths of the other. It may be that they will be ready to forgo the argument on who has more rights and accept that both simply have rights, as reflected in the emotions played out in this exercise and the conflict itself, revealing the parties’ determination and dedication to their causes.

Before ending the day, it is a good idea to find a way to explain the nature of the reflexive stage, since it may be difficult for some Partners to get a good grasp of it and participate without prior practice or awareness of its power. Often, conflict situations arise or are made worse by lack of communication and sharing of knowledge. The next day requires an extra effort to reflect on one’s motivations, values or needs, to express feelings, and to listen with attention to the other side. To a certain extent, the reversed role-playing has paved the way for putting ourselves in the place of the other, which is a key part of the exercise to follow.

Day 8: ARIA—The Reflexive Stage

Motivation and Rationale

The reflexive stage is necessary because it reframes the conflict not just in terms of the Partners’ opposing positions but now at a deeper level of understanding the needs and motivations of each party. It also continues the de-escalation of the antagonism that was allowed to surface the previous day.

A note to facilitators: There are a variety of ways to help enhance participants’ talking and listening, and their ability to engage in the reflexive stage, since it is the most personal phase and therefore the most threatening for many people. It is particularly difficult in some non-Western cultures. In America, self-examination in public is part of the popular culture, and quite a large number of people feel free to discuss psychological or marital problems no matter who is listening. When dealing with Partners on a worldwide scale, more often than not it is necessary to spend a good deal of time in preparation to adapt the process so that the participants are comfortable with this session. For example, it may be advisable to work in small groups and only at a second stage to share experiences and insights with the entire group. The mood during the reflexive stage is quite different from that of the adversarial stage. Participants are encouraged to use “I” statements, rather than the incriminating “you” from the previous phase, to talk to themselves aloud and to be honest about their feelings. It is important to remind participants that they should provide only as much information as they feel comfortable sharing, while at the same time stressing that opening up is not a sign of weakness. The transition from the adversarial to the reflexive stage implies shifting to a deeper level of empathy for both sides.

Discussion: Conflict Behavior

The day should begin with a presentation on why this stage is included in the workshop. The facilitators should generate an intellectual comprehension of the concept of “needs” through serious discussion. When one contemplates what drives people and nations to the extreme of sacrificing their own lives and well-being for a cause, one can understand that human beings are driven by strong inner forces. Human needs such as physical security, freedom from oppression and discrimin-ation, economic well-being, group identity (recognition, dignity and respect), and access to the social institutions of allocation and exchange are most commonly expressed and appear to be universal (Azar, this volume). Continual frustration in the attempt to improve satisfaction of one’s human needs can motivate violence when no better options appear to be available.

The “dual concern” model helps to further clarify the motivational dynamics of conflict (see Davies, this volume, figure 6.1). The model defines conflict behavior as varying according to two dimensions of concern in each situation. One represents degree of concern for self, or salience of one’s own needs and interests, ranging from low (leading to a preference for yielding or avoidance strategies) to high (leading to a preference for contending or integrative strategies). The second represents the range of concern for others, from low (leading to contending or avoidance) to high (leading to yielding or integrative strategies). By recognizing that there are two distinct dimensions of concern, for self and for other, that are not contradictory, one can shift from a one-dimensional model focusing only on self versus other (leading to yielding, contending or compromise) to notice a new continuum representing balanced concern for both parties, ranging from low concern for both (leading to avoidance or inaction) through moderate concern (allowing compromise) to high concern for both, which motivates collaborative effort to find a win-win (integrative) outcome. On conflicts over issues (needs) of high concern to both parties, full collaboration creates a stable solution; the other options leave one or both parties partially or completely unsatisfied and thus represent unstable settlements containing the seeds of future conflict cycles.

Exercise: Moving around the Room

A useful exercise for illustrating the theory is to place placards expressing different points of the continuum in corners of the room. Participants then move around the room depending on their personal reactions to a series of issues raised by the facilitators, or their classification of a list of personality attributes. Such methods of learning about conflict behavior help people whose style of learning is more concrete than abstract grasp the importance of this reflexive phase in facilitating a transition from “us versus them” to balanced or integrative perspectives. This progression is essential for joint problem solving to be successful. Experiential learning also has the advantage of promoting interaction among learners, which can help people overcome a number of prejudices. It enables participants to view members of the other party as they do themselves and to realize that their fears, hopes and needs are not all that different from anyone else’s.

A Personal Observation

Before we move to exercises designed to reveal the motivations of peoples in conflict, I would like to share a cautionary experience. When prominent members of Ecuadorian and Peruvian civil society once met at College Park, it became apparent in the workshop’s initial stages that attitudes toward their border disputes became increasingly more antagonistic when moving from civil society attitudes to governmental stands to military positions. In these cases, the Partners were unsure which level of needs to present in the reflexive stage, and we finally agreed to use active listening techniques to represent each of the three parts of their societies. Interesting contrasts emerged here; in addition to sharing with each other the mostly symbolic expectation of the people (recognition, dignity, respect for those killed in action, and economic well-being), the government had other, more immediate interests (usually political motivations such as elections, prestige), and the military was more concerned with the need to legitimate its function in the post-Cold War era and justify the purchase of new weapons, among other things. Such diversity of motivation across sectors within each party to a conflict is especially common when the level of violence is low; however, in all cases we should be cautious not to overgeneralize what we learn of Partners’ motivations to entire peoples.

Active Listening

Motivation and Rationale

Selective hearing through disconnection, lack of knowledge, or highly charged emotions have been highlighted in previous days as barriers to effective communication. Listening skills can be developed in a number of ways. The purpose is to promote more honest and effective communication among the participants, based on respect for the speaker and a willingness to hear and understand the full message being transmitted. The facilitators’ responsibility is to help all involved feel that they are being heard, through keeping the group focused, encouraging parties to speak out, clarifying key concepts, asking questions and summarizing main points periodically. They should also validate the willingness of participants to share concerns, fears, needs, values or experiences that may have gone unstated prior to this stage. These concerns are often deep and personal. Therefore, a sympathetic and sensitive atmosphere should be constructed.

Exercise: Robbery Report

Before discussing the active listening techniques, it is useful to demonstrate how the converse works: when one does not actively listen, the results can be quite detrimental. In this exercise, three volunteers are chosen and asked to wait outside. After they have left, everyone in the room is given copies of a robbery report. A volunteer is asked to enter and listen as someone reads the report in a voice that conveys urgency, but so that the volunteer can clearly understand what is said. The next volunteer is then asked in, and the report is repeated to him by the first one; the same follows for the last participant, as he/she repeats it to a “policeman” investigating the crime. The Partners should all be taking notes to see how communication can be mixed up and even wrong, if one does not pay close attention to what is being said (UNICEF, 1997). It should be stressed, however, that the volunteers should not be made to feel as though they are terrible communicators but rather that they have now aided in deciphering the factors that make effective listening a difficult act for anyone.

Discussion: Principles of Active Listening

Active listening involves paying attention, eliciting additional information and reflecting back the messages received (UNICEF, 1997). Factors such as atmosphere, body language and patience are also crucial (see box 10.1.).

Box 10.1 Techniques of Active Listening

In order to practice active listening, three approaches may be considered. The Partners can be consulted about which of the following exercises they would prefer. If there is not sufficient time to practice and illustrate the three approaches in consecutive rounds, the Partners may break into pairs or groups of three and explore the different types of active listening simultaneously and then share the experience with the others. The exercises on “nonviolent communication” may also be practiced or at least reviewed at this stage.

Exercise 1: The group is divided into groups of three, and people are asked to speak in rotation. As the first participant speaks, the second listens and then repeats back what was heard to the speaker, avoiding criticisms or passing judgment through changing the use of certain terms. The third member of the triad acts as a coach, paying close attention to both verbal and nonverbal cues, and in this manner helps both the speaker and the listener listen actively. Repeating the exercise three times allows each person to play each role and to feel the benefits that active listening can offer. All the participants then sit in a circle, and one member of each group is asked to report its main findings.

Exercise 2: The teams sit close together, each forming a matching half-circle. Partners on one team listen to what those on the other have to say concerning their experiences and motivations in the conflict, then summarize the needs that were expressed, using fewer words than the original speakers. The roles are then reversed. Paraphrasing can in fact assist in organizing the thoughts of the original presenter and clarify some poorly expressed concepts. During this phase, the Partners’ voices tend to be lower, as they fall into a more introspective mood. Since participants are inclined to speak softly of their concerns, the circle should be close. Each talk should last only about five minutes. Suggested topics for discussion might include a problem at work that was resolved successfully or unsuccessfully, past personal experiences in the current conflict, or an example of when the speaker mediated a conflict between others (UNICEF, 1997).

Exercise 3: The goal here is for team members to use counseling skills and reflective phrases to increase understanding. The Partner is encouraged to express feelings that she/he might hesitate to say out loud. Participants from one team speak of their experience and motivations in the current conflict while the other group encourages them, using phrases such as “Tell me more,” “I understand but what do you mean when you say humiliation?” or “We all have fears, but what characterizes yours?” Such listening may be therapeutic for the speaker, but it has also been rewarding to see how much more information and insights Partners are able to gain when asking questions in a concerned, helpful manner.

Applying Reflexive Listening

Once the rules of the reflexive phase are clear and the principles explored and understood, they can be applied to the conflict as a whole using at least one of these active-listening approaches. Allow at least one hour for the small group role-rotation, with an additional hour or more for the debriefing in plenary. The rotating coaches in each group have been taking notes during the exercise recording the underlying needs. Presenting their observations to the larger group is an important step toward understanding the group’s concerns. The more recurrent needs are clearly priorities that need to be addressed in the next integrative stage

Evaluating What Has Been Learned

This day is extremely important, because it provides a basis for a more thorough understanding of potential areas of common ground, and it should be evaluated at this point. The Partners may be asked whether, if they were to go through this stage another time, they would act differently. Their perception of the relevance and validity of the specific exercises can be assessed, along with their evaluation of the extent to which knowing the “why” behind the Partners’ positions may help in moving the problem-solving dialogue process along. Discovering the unexpressed reasons motivating the participants will be valuable for all involved.

It should now be clearer how much misperceptions have distorted the messages of both sides and have inclined each party to expect the worst behaviors and conspiracies of the other. The Partners are now more aware that different individuals and nations tend to express their needs only indirectly, that they have universally recognizable human needs, and that different needs will be more salient to different groups. For example, Israelis are overwhelmingly concerned with security, at the national level as well as at the personal level of daily existence; at the same time, Palestinians most strongly feel the need to master their own destinies and not be controlled by others. Perhaps both needs can be met, since they are searching for different yet potentially complementary outcomes. It is such common ground, based on the evolving understanding of shared or complementary needs, which allows both parties to deal with group problem solving rather than personal issues during the next day.

Introduction and Agenda Setting for the Integrative Phase

Motivation and Rationale

In this section the integrative phase should be discussed so participants will be prepared for the next day. This phase is about maximizing mutual gains, inventing new options while not necessarily committing a priori to their acceptance, and then finding the common denominators. The introduction should also set the agenda for their discussions. Different exercises can illustrate the importance of win-win strategies and seeing things from the other's perceptive.

An important note to facilitators: During this session and in following sessions, the participants should already be sitting together in one semicircle as a group rather than in distinct groups as for the previous two stages.

Exercise: Illustrating Zero-Sum and Win-Win Thinking

To illustrate the difference between zero-sum thinking and a win-win strategy, a number of Partners can be selected for the following game, the more the better. The Partners are paired for a session of armwrestling, with two small monetary awards for those with the most wins in one minute. While many of the participants struggle to put down their adversary’s hand no more than a few times, a team embracing the win-win strategy can come to an agreement to split the two awards in equal shares and then let each one put the other’s hand down as many times as possible. While others struggle, they can rack up victories. If no one in the room comes up with this strategy, the facilitators can demonstrate this alternative to adversarial thinking. The idea is to push the Partners into a cooperative mood and open them up to experimentation.

Exercise: Perspectives

A simple way illustrating the importance of perspective is to ask the Partners to focus on a particular part of the room that contains different objects, or a view through a window. When participants describe what they perceive from their viewpoints, it is easy to make the case that multiple points of view provide a much richer picture. Whatever exercise is used, the point is to demonstrate the value of being open to a new way of perceiving the same situation. It is always interesting to the Partners to realize how many different understandings of the same thing there are in a group. These exercises exemplify the value of being open and creative in problem solving.

A Discussion of Brainstorming

“Brainstorming” may be defined as a procedure for idea generation that involves the suspension of judgment and the deferral of evaluation. A brief comment on its origin as currently practiced may also be of interest. Brainstorming is an integral part of Osborne’s (1938) “creative problem-solving process,” and it is one stage in a cycle that includes fact finding, problem finding, idea finding, solution finding and acceptance finding. Brainstorming attempts to get the brain’s more linear-thinking left hemisphere to work with the more holistic right hemisphere. This requires using techniques that are logical and sequential but also some that are random and freewheeling.

Some methods that have worked well in promoting creativity in my joint projects with Barri Sanders are lateral thinking, backcasting, writing in different colors, circular listening, mind mapping and list exchanges. The number of creativity generators is as extensive as the facilitators’ capability for inventing them. Facilitators may discuss some of these ways for developing new ideas and talk about thinking as a self-organized informational system. Lateral thinking, for example, may be contrasted with hierarchical or linear (logical) thinking, which may lead to “tunnel vision” perspectives restricted by unexamined preconceptions of what is possible or relevant. Lateral thinking allows us to search horizontally for analogies between situations that seem very different but share characteristics with the conflict being discussed in the workshop. Earlier we discussed an example of lateral thinking in looking for models in existing microstates and autonomous regions, models that might open up the thinking of those dealing with the breakaway regions of Azerbaijan and Georgia.

Another option touched on earlier is backcasting, in which participants build back from the earlier “shared vision” exercise, revising the expected positive and negative outcomes of the problem from twenty years down to ten, five and then to the present. Other suggestions include “expanding the cake” before cutting it, meaning adding incentives for agreements by injecting assets other than those already under dispute. An example of this principle arises where territorial conflicts can be dealt with through gerrymandering. In the case of Jerusalem, one could define a much wider municipal area covering a hundred square kilometers (the area of the disputed Old City is only one square kilometer), covering what was under the Ottoman Empire the sanjak, or district, of Jerusalem, and then divide that into more ample Palestinian and Israeli capitals. Other tools for refocusing on problematic transactions and generating alternative options include: nonspecific compensation (one party concedes on the issue in return for some benefit received in an unrelated area), “logrolling” (each party concedes on issues that are of low priority to itself but of high priority to the other party), “costcutting” (one party gets what it wants but the other’s costs are reduced or eliminated) and “bridging” (neither party achieves its initial demands, but a new option is devised that satisfies the most important interests underlying those demands) (Rubin, Pruitt and Kim, 1994). Splitting the overall issue of water rights to a river, for example, not simply according to a percentage entitlements for each state but through identifying more specific values the river affords (irrigation, navigation, fishery, tourism, environment, domestic water consumption, power generation, cooling for industrial use, etc.) and asking stakeholders to assign numeric preferences to each allows these relative values to guide the division of access rights so that each state receives a higher percentage of its desired values than it would have received under a simple percentage split—a positive-sum outcome.

Agenda Setting

The agenda for the next day’s brainstorming session can be set in several ways. Ask the participants to identify the most viable and important agenda items they think should be addressed:

1. By getting feedback from the official first-track negotiations and finding either the impasses that have emerged or the points of discord that have been avoided but require addressing before the final agreement;

2. By looking back to the best possible and worst possible scenarios of the shared-vision exercise and backcasting from the future down to the immediate issues that need to be discussed; or

3. By splitting into small groups and reporting their collective preferences back to the plenary.

It is important that Partners build consensus about the topic to be addressed. This is best done through appointing a small preparatory committee early in the workshop to take on that responsibility, since the Partners will already have been identifying potential agenda items through earlier discussions and exercises. Criteria for selection can include: salience, gravity (levels of related violence, arrests, suffering), participants’ shared knowledge and expertise, simplicity, relevance for a majority of both communities, and the potential for generating early warning reports with appropriate recommendations.

The committee should meet with the facilitators a day or two prior to the brainstorming session to discuss the likely points. The recommended subject for the integrative phase should be presented to all the Partners during this session so they have time to reach consensus, think about the issue, and sleep on it before the integrative phase starts.

A note to facilitators: It is often obvious in international problem solving that those charged with finding solutions are too rooted in past history and current events to be forward thinking. The workshop has provided a different context, with extrapolation toward the future and reflexive exercises generating a recognition of joint perspectives, and with experimentation in techniques for freeing the imagination to think ahead creatively.

Day 9: ARIA—The Integrative Stage

Phase 1: Brainstorming

Setup

The day can begin with the participants once again seated not facing each other but in a curve facing the problem, which is mapped out on the flip chart or blackboard. Before beginning the creative process, we can help the Partners get into a “brainstorming mood” through brief tales and exercises.

Exercise in Creative Thinking: Thinking outside the Box

This is an effective tool for demonstrating that creative thinking can solve problems that people see as insoluble.

Figure 10.1 Thinking outside the Box

The instructions for the exercise are:

1. Connect all nine dots using no more than four straight lines.

2. The dots cannot be repositioned.

3. The connecting line must be drawn in one continuous stroke: leave the pencil on the paper until all lines have been drawn.

The concept behind the solution is not to allow our thinking to be contained and limited by imaginary boundaries. Thinking outside of boundaries and limitations is what creative thinking is about.

A note to facilitators: The title clearly reads “thinking outside the box,” and yet, overwhelmingly, people disregard it and try to draw the four lines inside the box.

Once the tone is set (if needed, remind them of the value of unconventional ideas for generating win-win outcomes, perhaps with a story ) the attributes of the brainstorming technique should be briefly reviewed and a list of rules for the exercise displayed: (1) all ideas are encouraged; (2) record them for display; (3) no criticisms, justifications or discussion of the merits; (4) avoid passing judgment either orally or through body language; (5) keep adding more ideas, including changing course to new lines of ideas; (6) do not focus on substantive differences; (7) all is confidential; (8) adding a footnote (or “hitchhike”) idea is acceptable; (9) combine related propositions or expand propositions with improvements; (10) depersonalize the ideas by not registering the name of the proponent; (11) encourage daring and freewheeling ideas (“the sky’s the limit,” “think big,” “no budgetary constraints”) and (12) keep the flow going for as long as possible.

A note to facilitators: It is difficult for many participants to refrain from offering comments or body language about others’ ideas. It is critical that the facilitators have the skills to keep this activity on track: reassure them that there will be an opportunity for evaluating the ideas later.

The Brainstorming Exercise

A brainstorming usually lasts from thirty to sixty minutes, depending on the number of Partners and levels of previous knowledge of the issues. Ideas should be stated briefly, since no justification is called for; this keeps the flow going and facilitates recording for later analysis. Two participants or facilitators should write down the ideas, checking to ensure accuracy, with proponents calling on the recorders alternately, so that the writing will not slow the flow of ideas.

If the group seems to be running out of ideas, and the facilitators would like to encourage more, they may announce how many minutes remain in the session, so that an extra effort can be made to generate more. Quantity is no guarantee of quality, but a larger harvest may include more powerful and creative suggestions.

Once this exercise is completed and before the break, all participants should be asked to mark on the charts those ideas they consider useful (for example, ++ for a very good idea, + for a good idea). This will serve to indicate to the small groups what the priorities of the larger group are and which ideas to focus on more. A long break between this phase and the next allows participants to recover from an intensive effort and switch to a different set of thinking skills.

Phase 2: Classification and Evaluation

Motivation and Rationale

In this section the Partners are asked to organize the ideas into thematic areas (such as economic, social, cultural, political, security and humanitarian) and then redraft them to make the language more accessible to people outside the workshop, and to avoid rough or potentially offending “hot button” wording (see exercise from Day 4). Once the solutions are divided into several baskets, preexisting zero-sum assumptions shift. Participants will attach different values to potential gains (and losses) in each of the baskets. Even if there is one basket that seems to have the most important issues at stake, the introduction of several alerts both sides to the potential for trade-offs, which they can get only if they are willing to be flexible on the more difficult and important issues. For example, it may be reasonable to leave for the end the most difficult problems (e.g., among Israelis and Palestinians, the issue of Jerusalem) to be tackled by a special group. Once there has been an accumulation of creative and attractive solutions to the smaller issues, the motivation to deal effectively with the core problems increases.

Classification and Evaluation Exercise

During the break, the facilitators and several Partners should separate the suggestions by thematic categories, according either to major issue areas within the conflict, the professional skills of the participants, or other explicit criteria. After the break the Partners should divide into small mixed groups, each with Partners from both sides. Partners may also be asked to join the group to which they can best contribute based on their professional interests or their personal cognitive strengths (avoiding, competing, compromising, accommodating or collaborating styles). The sense that they are acting in a capacity based not only on their own ethnic, national, or group identity may help open their minds toward dealing with the conflict based on complementarity with opposing Partners. No harm is done if an attractive idea or two is sent to more than one group; each Partner may choose to explore his/her own special area of interest.

Any outside observers who may be attending the workshop may be keen to participate and contribute with their own ideas. Normally, if security and confidentiality are not issues, Partners will welcome the opportunity to invite local observers. This should be encouraged, since a few people with different perspectives can help in defusing any continuing polarization and further expedite the search for common ground.

Group members are asked now to discuss the ideas assigned to them, clarifying them as needed and, taking into account the marks (++ and +) that were placed on the charts next to the ideas, rating them, say, on a five-point scale (five for the best, one for the poorest). Ideas and values assigned to them by the small groups are put on flip charts for the entire workshop. Within one or two hours, with a rapporteur recording the results, the rephrased ideas (usually about ten to fifteen for each group) are listed in order of assigned value, and the preferred notions are brought back to the entire group. Looking again into the fine drafting of the ideas is important, to make sure that they will be understood “out of the room” in the respective societies and to ensure that they are couched in appropriate language.

Phase 3: The Search for Common Ground

Motivation and Rationale

Partners should understand that consensus is not achieved through majority vote or avoidance of objections. Everyone should have his or her concerns brought before the entire group, and only when that participant is comfortable with relinquishing an idea should the group let it drop. In true consensus finding, people actively listen to each other and find ways to satisfy the important concerns of everyone. This takes longer than majority rule, but the resulting buy-in is critical to keep someone from sabotaging the project later. If participants feel unduly pressured, they will have a hard time implementing any ideas they are not happy with.

The Consensus Exercise

The small teams return to the main group, fixing their own chart pages on the walls. The facilitators should present some dos and don’ts of consensus.

Box 10.1 The Levels of Consensus

After the presentation by each small group, the Partners should be asked if there is consensus (it is not a good idea to ask if there are opponents). Where there are major reservations, the person holding them can be given additional clarification by the rapporteur, other members of his/her team and the group at large. There is always room for accommodation by adding, subtracting, or changing the original wording of an idea. Dissenters will feel pressure from their peers to approve the idea even if they do not fully agree; they may yield and let it pass. Although people should not be forced to go along with the majority, and consensus rule gives each Partner a veto, it is not necessarily unhealthy for a participant to drop his/her objection to what other members of the group consider feasible. In some cases, a participant who agrees to let go his/her objections becomes a king/queen for the day; he/she may come to feel good about accommodating instead of being intransigent. On the other hand, if anyone persists in his/her objection and no accommodation can be found, the idea should be dropped and the process moved along, without making anyone feel ostracized or excluded.

Once an approved list is completed, it can be typed up and distributed among the Partners and, if they agree, as a joint statement for other interested parties. The exercise may then be concluded with a short evaluation of the integrative stage and of the ARIA process so far. These three days will have been intense and productive. Feedback is important, so that the facilitators and organizers can learn what worked and what did not, and see the value of their collective and individual efforts.

A note to facilitators: I have had cases in which consensus has been reached, only to be approached a few days later on behalf of one of the Partners who is unwilling to go along with his/her previously agreed position. One can opt either to talk to the particular individual and explore refinements that the group may accept, or simply redraft the preamble to the joint statement to read “All participants from group A and an overwhelming majority of participants from group B”.

Day 10: Practicing Conflict Transformation in the Real World

Adapting the Workshop into the Partners’ Own Cultures

Motivation and Rationale

About two-thirds of the workshop has now been completed, and the feeling may be that the most difficult part is over. Thoughts may be shifting to the return home, and there may be some sadness and/or expectations about a new priority or, in some cases, a new career in the field of conflict resolution. The facilitators can now present the results of the previous day much more systematically for comments and discussion on how to follow up the main ideas. Concrete recommendations for policy makers may be discussed at this point, as well as how to formulate these ideas to elicit interest among colleagues and how to translate them into activities aimed at changing public opinion and initiating grassroots action. If the Partners are to promote a culture of conflict resolution in their own societies and train as facilitators to work with colleagues and others in their own environments, there is a need to adapt activities and concepts in order for them to gain value and acceptance. When we speak about adaptation to different cultures, we mean not only at the level of adequate language but also in terms of traditional forms and exercises that need to be identified and integrated with the newly developed techniques.

Discussion of Culture and Conflict Transformation

Moving to a more elicitive approach, the workshop may now also focus on revisiting the strengths and weakness of collaborative problem solving in light of the traditions and existing conflict resolution mechanisms and practices found in the Partners’ own cultures. The facilitators should lead a discussion on how the lessons learned can be best applied given the cultures of the Partners. This objective should be pursued in a systematic manner, beginning with basic concepts such as peace, conflict, management and reconciliation. As an example, in a workshop I was involved in, I used the Spanish phrase tormenta de ideas as a translation for “brainstorming.” A participant from Bolivia informed me that the preferred term was lluvia de ideas, or a “rain of ideas,” because it sounds less frightening than “storming.” It is worthwhile to listen and comment, and try to elicit ideas for adapting the model to help participants develop an integrative approach that will be effective in their communities. In developing their own plans for conducting conflict-resolution training, participants will need to adapt it to the mentality and culture of their own nations, incorporating autonomous elements from local traditions both in the naming and substance of the exercises. Respect for the role of elders in peacemaking may need to be factored in; seniority should not be unnecessarily challenged. Tight social networks make it difficult “to separate the people from the problem,” and alternative ways are required.

One of the perceived difficulties is the role-playing in the adversarial stage of ARIA. In some Confucian cultures in particular, the idea of being outspoken and aggressive is contrary to tradition, and often the participants are not able or willing to act along the prescribed lines. In experimenting on adaptation we were able to ascertain that Japanese high school students dealing with the conflicts with the Buraku and Korean-Japanese did not feel comfortable speaking aloud but were willing to write down how they felt. Another adaptation included not sharing personal statements but asking one of each group of Partners to act as a rapporteur or “leader” and bring to the fore the comments expressed by individual members of the inner group who would prefer to remain anonymous. Ground rules such as these can be worked out according to the needs of each culture.

Introducing Information Technology (IT)

Motivation and Rationale

Rapid developments in computer technology and electronic media also require that the IPSW be constantly adjusted, though only within limits set by technical and budgetary constraints in the Partners’ countries. In planning how to maintain postworkshop communication and dialogue among Partners, we have found that, paradoxically, in many developing countries our Partners have access to electronic communicative technology via the Internet, while older means of communication (phones, mail, fax) may not yet be available, at least not between the communities in conflict. We have been able to set up an embryonic “virtual community” of Partners that will endeavor to use all Internet channels available (e-mail, home pages, chat groups, video-conferencing).

A Discussion of Tools of Communication

Workshop organizers may arrange a session to present such IT tools and help in efforts to facilitate the Partners’ access to them. The advantage of using such non-face-to-face of communication cannot be neglected: when direct meetings are not available in the home region, given the level of conflict between the parties, ongoing discussion of the issues and action steps through the Internet is a valid alternative.

Once, for example, in a workshop at College Park, we were able to familiarize participants with the International Communications and Negotiation Simulations (ICONS) Project, a worldwide, multi-institutional, computer-assisted simulation program used to address issues of concern at the international, regional or dyadic levels. Partners expressed their enthusiasm for experimenting with ICONS as an additional tool to their face-to-face contacts, especially because operations as expensive as workshops can only occur sporadically. The Partners conducted simulations on topical issues at College Park in mixed teams, representing both themselves and the other party, as well as foreign actors (mostly the regional powers). If the workshop participants are academics, they may wish to use the ICONS network in training their students. In any case, if they will be keeping in touch via the Internet in the follow-up stages, they can also be trained in the use of such on-line negotiation simulations and use them as a vehicle for discussion among themselves and others. Adapting ICONS to particular issues of concern to the Partners may be worthwhile, if funding is available. Video-conferencing may also be an option for the follow-up phase, if equipment is available in the region and budget constraints permit.

Most of Day 10 may be spent in informal groups developing ideas for implementation. The facilitators should provide supporting information, such as opportunities and procedures for applying for funding. Representatives of relevant foundations might be invited to come speak, and good impressions of the group’s potentials may lay the ground for future funding (see Day 14).

Day 11: Acknowledgment and Healing

Rationale and Motivation

Given the human suffering that accompanies protracted communal conflicts, the Partners will need to develop their skills in dealing with traumatic situations, past wounds, present threats and possible future acts of violence that may derail a prolonged official peace process. Montville (1990: 538) brings up the question of how a person can overcome the sense of past injustice and victimhood, and become compassionate toward the other side. He states that “for the mourning process to occur, [it] requires that the victimizers accept responsibility for their acts or those of their predecessor government and people, recognize the injustice, and in some way ask forgiveness of the victims. In many cases, the contrition has to be mutual,” a point that is similarly stressed by Volkan (1985).

Social responsibility, contrition and forgiveness are powerful and even necessary elements in dealing with intense conflicts. They may not carry any direct tangible costs, but they can still be extremely difficult to express (Cohen, 1997a). Research and practical exploration on how best to facilitate these processes in real time are still in the early stages. A key issue is how to recognize in suffering an opportunity for reconciliation, rather than leaving it as a festering wound and source of further hatred and animosity. Such actions, often perpetrated by a small extremist minority, have a paralyzing effect, even among Partners who feel great goodwill toward each other under other circumstances.

We have found that due to sensitivity and lack of profound knowledge of the other party’s traditions of grief, benevolently inclined people have been unable or unwilling to share their feelings of sorrow and compassion with their “enemies.” Acts such as attending a funeral of a victim killed by one’s own people not only requires human courage but may in some situations be counterproductive or dangerous. Hence, there is a need to understand the traditions and expectations of the communities involved, and for careful preparation (jointly, where possible) before undertaking such acts.

The problem of healing is relevant not only for dealing with the past but also for the conduct of the workshop. There have been instances when acts of terror or massacres have occurred in the Partners’ communities during our workshops. As discussed earlier, explicit ways of coping with the trauma are required, and a discussion on healing should be undertaken immediately. During an Israeli/Palestinian workshop a short time after a Jew (Baruch Goldstein) massacred a large number of Muslims at prayer in Hebron, it was reported on the morning news that many Jews had just been killed in a bomb explosion at a bus station in Jerusalem. In cases such as these, when not everyone may have heard the news already, the facts should be brought in, with sensitivity, and the Partners can be asked what they think needs to be said to each other. They may also discuss the possibility of another such episode occurring, and what should be done about that. A group of Palestinian and Israeli women students once discussed the possibility of sending letters, with a small present or book, to children in the other community wounded in such violence. This, it was hoped, would open a channel of communication so that eventually Arab and Jewish students could together visit the victims of both sides in the hospital. The healing power of such humanitarian acts can also be multiplied if announced in the media.

Even when the majorities of two nations in conflict would like to move on and pragmatically reach a compromise agreement, the extremes of both sides, generating violent acts, can stop the peace process. A handful of fanatics can be a formidable barrier, unless more enlightened sectors of the silent majorities realize that they also need to play a moderating role, particularly, but not only, at the most difficult moments. Partners can brainstorm specific ideas or doable projects that can be included as personal commitments at the reentry stage.

Acknowledgment, forgiveness and healing is essential to short-term, and particularly long-term, reconciliation. In protracted and violent communal conflicts this makes the difference between a cold, fragile peace based on formal cease-fire agreements and the development of a sustainable “people-to-people” relationship. There are no shortcuts on this route. Eventually, the painful experiences of the past must be dealt with. Many such processes of “truth and reconciliation” have been undertaken as a governmental initiative (Chile, South Africa—see Borris, this volume) or at the NGO level (the “Nunca Mas”—never again—church-sponsored reports in Uruguay and Brazil). The Partners can discuss planning or cooperating together with such processes, particularly if the workshop is taking place at the postnegotiation stage, after a peace agreement has been signed.

Introducing personal stories can help. The facilitators and participants can ask each other if they have ever felt discriminated against, oppressed or have mourned the loss of friends and relatives as a result of the conflict. If an actual episode of this nature has occurred during or just prior to the workshop, it should be dealt with. If there have been no such cases involving the participants, role-playing can also be a useful alternative.

It has been suggested that acknowledgment of responsibility and actively seeking justice for the other party will produce lasting beneficial effects, though such an undertaking is less likely to happen immediately after a crisis. The potential for this can be discussed at the workshop, though I would not pressure the Partners for such recognition of responsibility in public, nor would I recommend that it occur immediately after an act of violence. This workshop should allow participants to show empathy not only for the humanity of their respective peoples as a whole, but also toward each other as individuals. Receiving faxes or telephone calls from Palestinian Partners and friends has helped in dealing with my own grief. Originating such communications to them has given me a sense of doing the right thing and allowed me, in expressing my concern, to express my gratitude for the concern expressed by them. In an ideal world the training process should empower Partners to make this area an integral part of their lives as peace builders.

Although such spontaneous gestures can be invaluable, protracted conflicts require a network of Partners to address in a systematic and sustained way the challenge of expressing humanity toward each other. From our own experiences we have come to realize how difficult is to agree to share victimhood. Past and present suffering are hard to compare, and so are the isolated but brutal acts of terror inflicted by one side and the sustained and widespread hardship caused by the policies of the other side (structural violence). The fact that this is a difficult mission does not imply that it is impossible. Beyond sensitivity training, organizations on each side can facilitate such expressions by bringing the participants into contact with the victims’ families, with the media, and even with the perpetrators of violence or their relatives. To illustrate, in 1997 a group of Israelis and Palestinians set up a HEAL (Healing Early Action Link) network to address on a reciprocal and joint basis the acts of violence committed by official and nonofficial perpetrators of both sides. The activities conducted by this group include visiting victims of political violence, writing letters to victims and relatives, conducting training courses, preparing a manual for wide circulation and joint media appearances. Early action can also include joint writing of press articles. Calls for establishing joint memorials can help achieve healing through association with the past suffering of both communities.

This session may also be useful to introduce the expectations of “justice” by both sides, particularly relevant for those that perceive themselves as the oppressed in an asymmetric dyadic relationship. Human rights principles can provide international standards that are shared by most nations and their governments.

I have seen even young students very moved by the sessions of this day, particularly if an incident has occurred real-time, generating an urgent need to work out a healing process together. Partners’ ability to commit to be active in this field upon reentry is crucial in cases of sporadic or continuous violence.

Day 12: Joint Activities before Departure and Reentry

Training for Reentry

Motivation and Rationale

The IPSW should not be an isolated event—that could leave the Partners feeling isolated and lost after reentry. The reentry process has been described as a culture shock attributable both to separation from those who have undergone a similar experience and to exposure to a sort of inquisition from others in a still-hostile environment. Participants who wish to share new and moderate ideas from the brainstorming session may be regarded by some as fools, naive or (even worse), as traitors and victims of brainwashing. Within a Partner’s family, tensions can be quite high when discussing how helpful the workshop was and how it has influenced their thinking. To avoid perceptions of proselytizing or preaching, the Partners should offer detailed pictures of lessons learned and actively seek feedback on these new perspectives.

Investment in personal transformation alone, when dealing with Partners in ongoing conflicts, is not justified. The internalization of experiential learning without the added phase of empowerment through follow-up action can result in frustration and inconclusiveness rather than fulfillment and growth. Hence, it is for the benefit of the individual as well that effective means for contributing to community transformation should also be planned. It is relatively simple to conceive of follow-up activities, if participants collaborate and time is allocated. “When re-entry is well planned, the lessons learned and the skills developed can be applied back home in beneficial ways, over an appropriate time frame and within a trusting environment” (Eshelman and Standish, 1996).

Box 10.1 Guidelines for Going Home

Box 10.1—Continued

Activities for Reentry

Generally, we suggest starting the reentry stage in the immediate aftermath of the workshop. If in the capital of a third country (such as Washington, D.C.) the Partners can submit documentation of their points of agreement and program of action in a joint delegation to their respective ambassadors. This was done, for instance, by the Peruvian and Ecuadorian participants, who were ceremoniously received in the two embassies. In the case of the Partners from the Transcaucasus, we set up joint lectures at different institutions and universities in the area, generating the opportunity to show to a wider audience their commitment to searching for common ground and avoiding adversarial discourse.

In addition to developing specific small projects, the Partners should consider expected problems upon reentry and how to confront them effectively. A two-hour discussion and advising session is recommended as a debriefing in their habitat or work place upon return. More enthusiastic participants should not be in a rush to share the outcomes and agreements from the workshop but should first give detailed accounts of the intricacies of the IPSW process. If they can remember how skeptical they were on the first day, perhaps they will better understand the need for this delay.

Keeping in touch with other participants inside and outside their own country or community is also extremely useful, so that no one feels alone in the process of keeping alive the commitments undertaken to themselves and each other. Use of IT technology (e-mail, a shared Web site, chat groups, video-conferencing, etc.) needs to be discussed, making sure Partners have access, often by the organizers’ making sure that budgetary provisions have been made in the original proposal.

In preparing for reentry, it may be worthwhile to role-play among the Partners an interaction with a friend or colleague from a home community who is skeptical of the IPSW process. A Partner tells the story as the local “friend” increases his/her critical response. Other participants can evaluate the performance and suggest improvements in strategy. Another suggested exercise is to ask the participants to take a few minutes and write themselves a letter, to be mailed by the organizers about two weeks after their return. In the letters, the participants should express their current feeling and willingness to undertake some specific joint actions and projects in the near future. A more collective equivalent is to ask the Partners to write a message for themselves and put all of them in a bottle, to be copied and shared after departure with everybody.

Additionally, it may be worthwhile for participants to organize an informal discussion session at a university, NGO, a friend’s house or in a Partner’s own home. The emphasis should be on process and content, avoiding buzzwords or phrases that were part of the internal language of the workshop. The experience should be shared with peers, even if it is not as well received as originally hoped. The stimulus for creative efforts to resolve the conflict will be transmitted to the larger community more by deeds than by words.

Team-Building Exercises

In order to stimulate team building, it is suggested that the participants prepare themselves for joint presentations in front of a local or even mixed audience, to write an op-ed together, or to use some other form for joint expression. At College Park we have often arranged for Partners in small groups jointly to visit schools where peer mediation takes place and have them talk to the students about their conflicts and current experiences in addressing ways to resolve them. If they are academics, the Partners can be asked to share the podium at a university or elsewhere (perhaps for a modest honorarium, which can be a helpful stimulus). Being an experienced team-teacher with an exceptional Palestinian Partner, I can confirm that team-teaching in classrooms provides us with adrenaline and empowers us to continue with other concrete activities in putting the collaborative experience into action.

When jointly speaking in public the Partners must take care to minimize the potential for ending the performance in an adversarial manner. One way of doing so is to suggest at least two rounds of presentations. In the first round the Partners speak introspectively and objectively about their own side of the conflict, looking at the performance of their own governments and societies. In the second part, they can comment on the performance of the other side to the conflict and, if necessary, correct any possible biases in the presentation of the other person. This two-staged approach alleviates the uncertainty of going first and attacking immediately, as a pre-emptive measure.

Day 13: Unstructured Social Activities

No matter how well the workshop has progressed, there is normally a need for some private space, away from the sustained intensity of workshop activities. The day may include individual or group activities resulting from participants’ special requests, such as visits to museums, shopping expeditions, or just quiet relaxation and reflection. Shared outdoor activities or excursions that require some investment of energy and human resources can also promote team building. The time may also be used for more detailed discussion about the Partners’ future cooperation. An optional evening outing to a cultural event or dinner may also be offered.

Basically, this day is a time for collecting thoughts and easing tensions that may have arisen in the workshop, particularly the more intensive stages of ARIA, so that everyone will be refreshed in the last days for discussions on joint projects and the sometimes difficult step of saying good-bye.

Day 14: Finalizing Drafts of Action Plans

The Partners come together again to design and develop action plans and joint projects, with timelines for their future activities and programs. This is a good time to familiarize participants with potential sources of funding, fund-raising issues and the possible involvement of the hosting institution in future plans. The current funders for the project may also be invited for a conversation with the Partners, along with other project development specialists.

The types of projects that can be developed are nearly limitless, but plans must take into account budgetary constraints. It is useful to begin developing a shared mechanism or institution for some of these projects. Loyalty can develop to a transnational joint enterprise or epistemic community that may transcend the original loyalty to the group. Such institutions may take on a life of their own and promote problem solving through the generation of shared values. My own team-teaching with a Palestinian colleague has for several years not only afforded me a good understanding of his arguments but made our views closer and more integrative. It is the recurrent practice of pedagogic activities which unites us, especially when we face hostile environments in our own societies.

There are many training resources for action planning, each often copywriting their own products. We have used different organizing frameworks, mostly based on systematic common sense, dealing with short-term objectives and long-term goals (what?), motivation (why?), division of labor (who?), timeline (when?), activities (how?), and budget (how much?).

When it is possible to involve representatives of foundations in dialogue with the Partners, the latter, in anticipation of possible funding, tend to work harder on their action plans, normally including a summary evaluation of the workshop as well of their prospects for related applied work. This in itself is an accelerator for future cooperation. Some minimal funding is critical for maintaining the Partners’ relationships in the future, given the dedication required to work effectively in the often shattered or impoverished societies from which they come.

Day 15: The Last Day

Motivation and Rationale

The completion of the workshop is likely to be an emotional event, as bonds and relationships between participants often grow strong during the project. Its importance can hardly be stressed enough, because the values, experiences and commitments that are developed during these final stages will strongly influence the attitudes of the participants toward future joint activities (Keyton, 1993).

How members terminate the workshop activities affects how they will approach similar situations. Being encouraged to say good-bye allows an opportunity apart from the task to talk about the interaction process and the relational components of that task group. It provides a time to diffuse and assess the emotional impact of the task. It is time to reflect on what has happened and how, a time to take the positive forward, and a time to learn from the negative (Keyton, 1993).

Evaluation

This session should not become an early farewell ceremony, which has a legitimate place at the very end of the workshop. Particularly, in cases were the general feeling is positive, we can easily find ourselves moving from facilitation to felicitation. We need to minimize ritual expressions of gratitude, saying that there will be another opportunity. Ideally, we should have used already the “action-evaluation” technique (Rothman and Friedman, this volume), and therefore the last day should only add incrementally to the revision of the goals and objectives set at the beginning of the workshop. If not, an overall evaluation of the workshop should be conducted in addition to the “one-minute evaluation” forms that have provided immediate inputs on the daily program and the assessment of the ARIA role-playing. Feedback, collected through personal and group interviews, should be gathered on the extent to which the workshop has fulfilled the goals and expectations of the participants. Personal interviews minimize group pressure. At the same time, as Rouhana and Korper (1981) write, “A genuine critical evaluation of the intervention’s effectiveness in furthering group goals requires that participant feedback also be done in group, thus introducing group pressures and social desirability that are the political reality in which the participants actually deal with the conflict.”

The criteria for evaluation are determined beforehand, so that the workshop is assessed in terms of previously defined intermediate or long-term goals, as well as immediate returns as judged from concrete outcomes and activities (such as declarations, joint lectures in the community, expressions of trust and confidence-building measures offered during the workshop).

Kelman (1997a) provides a long list of intermediate goals, including developing cadres with experience in and commitment to direct communication with the other side; viewing communication and negotiation as feasible; striving for mutually satisfactory agreements for the end of conflict; differentiating the enemy image from reality; identification of Partners from the other side; raising awareness of others’ perspectives; developing a de-escalatory language; identifying usually reassuring actions and symbolic gestures; generating shared visions of a desirable future; and getting the Partners to the table and overcoming obstacles in the dialogue process.

These individual and group evaluations can be supported by a prepared set of questions, particularly if we would have liked to measure before-and-after attitudinal changes. A complex questionnaire is not recommended. More importantly, the participants should be encouraged to speak aloud about their learning experiences and have them recorded (if they agree), to provide an outlet to express emotions and commitment to the continuing project and to each other. When there is no volunteer to start the oral evaluation, we can ask a couple of the participants to read their answers from the written form, trading places in the center of the room. Often, it may sound self-congratulatory as well as a repeat of expressions of thanks to the organizers, but it is a good idea to let a first round of statements go in this direction and allow for the Partners to express their often genuine sense of gratitude. However, the facilitators should encourage a second round if necessary, for which the participants are reminded how important it is to note what went wrong, how things could be improved, etc.

A note to facilitators: The facilitator needs to take into account that in some cultures (e.g., parts of East and South East Asia) there is a reluctance to express criticism in public, as well as to share feelings. Aware of this, the facilitator may either risk having requests for oral evaluation met largely by silence or request that individual participants talk to him or to a member of the delegation, who will be in charge of providing a list of suggestions without attribution.

Final Team-Building and Saying Good-bye

Some outdoor team-building activities can be included here, according to the age group and culture, from high-ropes to sharing a unique landscape. The physical sense of being one group is an added and lasting dimension. On the departing day of a workshop in Sinai, most Egyptian, Jordanian, Palestinian and Israeli Partners took part in a canyon expedition. One of the Palestinian participants was blind and insisted on walking with everybody else, asking only to be told what the landscape was like. Although at the outset we were concerned about whether he would be able to complete the journey, we soon discovered that his willpower overcame all difficulties. When there was a narrow passage or high slope where he needed active assistance, the main volunteer was a strong Israeli settler, whom the Palestinian sought out when back in the jeep. A Jordanian participant indicated she had vertigo and refused to climb down to the canyon. She was encouraged not to remain behind, and eventually she did join the rest of us, being periodically calmed and supported by the other participants.

Saying a few parting words can be done in different ways, from holding hands in a circle, to just reading from a prepared text. Abrazos, shaking hands, kissing both or only one sex, showing emotions or not—all of these expressions need to be respectful of the participants’ cultures and value systems. Holding hands in a circle with a moment of silence to collect thoughts seems to work across many cultures, but it is difficult to generalize on this point. Perhaps it is best to ask the participants themselves to organize the good-bye ceremony, and the facilitators and staff to be invited guests. In the Caucasian tradition, toasting is a nearly endless process, and the vodka glasses tend to be accompanied by ever-deeper expressions of respect, friendship and love. The process of departure sometimes may include private moments, or a moving ceremony with the host community and friends of the participants present as well. Part of the activity could be ceremonial and used to grant diplomas or certificates, which help bind the group together with one more shared identity, as “graduates.”

The workshop is now complete, and all that remains is for the Partners to return to their homes and lives. It is hoped that the lessons learned and friendships gained from the workshop will remain with all Partners, fostering a greater understanding of the nature of their conflict and, thus, of potential solutions which may put an end to the human suffering it has created.

Concluding Remarks

It can be argued, quite correctly, that the preceding ideas are based mostly on common sense and experience. Our experience is that their amalgamation creates a powerful process larger than its individual components. The activities described in this and the preceding chapter can potentially enable participants to feel their way through an intense experience of opening up to each other and to a personal transformation which allows them to commit themselves powerfully to working on the resolution of their communities’ conflicts. Now it is up to them to experiment and adapt the workshop to the conditions of their own situations. Clearly, it is more a gestalt than a universal recipe, requiring adaptation to the particulars of different cultures and constantly changing circumstances. Although some exercises may appear childish or naive, adults have found humanity in doing them. Most workshops are shorter than the suggested fifteen days, and facilitators will have to make hard choices selecting the initial activities of higher relevance to their Partners and completing the cycle in other encounters.

Looking back with the eyes of both a participant and experienced facilitator and cofacilitator, I complete this applied text by underscoring some important lessons.

A continuous preoccupation of the participants of the weaker side, and to a large extent of the organizers themselves, is how to overcome imbalance in power relations. What real incentives does the strong side have to come into an egalitarian type of exercise? I have developed some rationale for “top dog” participation in conflict resolution in the introductory lecture. Clearly, we can make a point that in second track diplomacy there is nothing to lose, that the deliberations are confidential and that any agreed outcome is acceptable only by consensus of all participants. Often, the attraction of a “quality time” in Washington, D.C., or another interesting part of the world carries some weight. Once we manage to get both sides on board, it has been our repeated observation that the stronger feels more sensitive to the needs of the other and becomes more aware of the value of taking the other into account for a more permanent and stable solution.

Second, the expectation for tangible results is natural, especially with new experiments. Sometimes it happens that a single new idea or concept emerges from the workshop and is implemented by policy makers. We can also say that successful IPSWs replicated over time can assist in the formation of epistemic communities from contending parties in developing a shared understanding of their political realities and thus help them to come up eventually with innovative solutions to the conflict. If we see this as a continuous process, we do not need to push for shared ideas in the first round, let alone a joint statement. Beware of premature commitments and pressure for immediate results. The solutions have to click in the minds of the Partners, and we can only help by providing them with the conceptual and practical ability to open up to each other in new ways, and by generating an esprit de corps that allows them to transcend the conflict divide.

Third, many IPSW graduates appear to be dedicated privately or publicly to advancing a culture of conflict resolution in countries and regions where it is desperately needed. It also establishes personal ties among the Partners that can endure. One example from a workshop at College Park relates to a shared expression of concern for suicidal violence in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. When a Jewish zealot machine-gunned a large group of Muslims praying in Hebron, perhaps it was to be expected that a long-standing Israeli “peacenik” would send a fax of condolences to his newly acquired friend, a young graduate and now administrator of an ardently nationalist Palestinian university. The fax was sent without actually imagining that it would be read over the phone while under curfew by the Israeli authorities in his own city of Hebron and mourning a relative killed in the massacre. What was less expected a few weeks later, immediately after a bomb went off in Tel Aviv, was that the same Palestinian friend, a ten-time former detainee as a member of a radical group, would send a fax to several of his newly acquired Israeli friends, which contained the following:

It was really a very hard moment not only for the Jewish people but for all peacemakers all over the world. I really know what the feeling is for the families and for normal people, and I felt shame for what some stupid peace killers have done, and how much pain they planted in the hearts of the families and the people of this region. I cannot find the words to express what I think about this terrible action. They did that just to kill the good things that we started together, and the best way to fight them is by going on in the peace process. So let’s go on and hope that this will be the last episode of bloodshed and suffering in this century. On behalf of myself and my people I express my deep condolences to the families of the victims, to your people and yourself. I hope this will not stop the peace process: now I believe we should double our efforts to make peace.

Clearly, the learning about the reciprocal expression and acknowledgment of grief through the IPSW had had an impact. Reconciliation may remain a distant objective, but we can often achieve much in a properly conducted workshop. So it happened that one day, as I was working on a draft of this chapter, I was awakened with the news that back home in Jerusalem, eighteen of my people had been killed and fifty wounded in the Makhaneh Yehuda market by two Muslim fundamentalists. Calling home, we found out that our son-in-law had been there, at precisely the same time, and that our in-laws had been leaving for the market when they heard the news. In this atmosphere, writing about conflict resolution requires us to throw our memories back to the fax of our Arab friend, to remind ourselves that all Partners are together in a shared enterprise to stop the killing and move toward a lasting peace.

Focusing on process in itself is a necessary but insufficient condition for learning, and the IPSW is not a panacea. Historical knowledge of the region, issues and culture is a prerequisite. The workshop can meaningfully contribute to new ideas on conflict resolution, provided at least the facilitators take into account a current sociopolitical analysis by area specialists (see Gurr and Davies, this volume). Better again is to have cofacilitators from the contending parties, familiar with the problems, who have been previously trained in the conduct of IPSWs; but an adequate balance can be achieved by including in the facilitating team an expert from each of the Partners’ nations. In retrospect, we feel confident that a well-selected menu of the exercises has invariably opened the appetite of participants coming from diverse parts of the globe. We have been able to adapt them to Partners as young as Palestinian and Israeli high-schoolers in the “Seeds for Peace” project, or as “established” as high-ranking officers from Peru.

There are many additional tools that we have used that have not been mentioned, such as training in conversational English for foreign participants through a conflict-resolution curriculum, the early introduction of meditation or relaxation training and the use of psychodrama for the enacting of past traumatic events. We should not overburden a workshop with exercises at the expense of time for discussion of the substance of the problems. The delicate balance required for success means drawing selectively from an array of IPSW techniques and adapting them to the culture and situation. The IPSW should not become an occupational-therapy approach, displacing the unstructured space needed for substantive discussions. IPSWs are required in order to upgrade decision making in a conflict situation, and the best outcome is obtained when we leave sufficient space for constructive political exchange. The hosts or facilitators should not confuse hospitality with hospitalization but allow time both for substance and for breaks, where people have time to reflect and explore informally with their own team or other Partners their relationships and future activities.

We need to realize that often there are gaps between the IPSW concept and its actual implementation. Perfection is the enemy of good, and from our perspective, the workshops have undoubtedly promoted the learning curve and the motivation to do better. Whenever a crisis has erupted, it has strongly affected relations between Partners or those of one or more of them towards the facilitator. We can try to convert the moment of weakness into a source of strength. This is easier said than done, but possible. It has often been the case that the Partners realize that the initial investment of trust, energy and resources cannot be lost and that the momentum needs to continue. A frank discussion with the participants most likely will empower them to work hand in hand toward the successful completion of the workshop.

Budgetary and time considerations strongly constrain the nature of any second track program. It is important to plan the IPSW not as an isolated event but as one that at least has another IPSW or other joint activity built in for when the Partners reenter their communities. Our suggestion is to plan the original program for two weeks, plus two shorter workshops. At a minimum, a realistic model should include an initial workshop of seven days, followed by two follow-up sessions of three days each. Anything shorter than one week for the main workshop loses impact, although even a two-day IPSW can be run as a demonstration, whetting the appetite for further systematic use. In such cases, we should be very up-front with both the funders and the participants about the limited scope of such a presentation and training.

The importance of having at least some follow-up activities after reentry is not simply based on the difficulty of picking up momentum once it has been lost. We feel it is unfair to generate expectations (beyond personal enrichment of the participants during the workshop) and then, for all intents and purposes, drop them. The role of professional facilitators in initiating follow-up activities should be secondary to that of the Partners, but organizers and facilitators must undertake a responsibility to enhance possibilities for building on the second track process once it is begun, promising to continue with the project to the best of their abilities. This is the same responsibility that was required in the selection process and planning of the IPSW. At least one more activity with the Partners needs to be included initially. When funds first run out, it may simply mean that new and imaginative thinking is needed on how to move forward.

Paraphrasing Bernard Baroukh, we know that IPSW works in practice, and so we must hope that it works in theory as well. Yet, there is a need not only for further experimentation with the methods introduced in this book but also for research in new models. Development is needed of more sophisticated and theoretically grounded models that could be more appealing and relevant in promoting resolution of protracted conflict. For example, strategic choice problems played out as “games” among two or more parties have the potential for developing more cooperative behavior. Cooperative games based on impartial reasoning tend to increase consensus for generating safety nets in which all sides to the conflict should have their minimal needs recognized and provided. Tools for a more objective and quantifiable evaluation are being developed for collaborative problem-solving settings and need to be adapted to the IPSW.

The original version of IPSW called for absolute respect for the “rules of the game.” Over the years, we have learned to make better use of mixed models. Hence, having participants who are a mix of real Partners and locals in a third country in what for the latter is a simulation; bringing together several types of Partners as components of both groups; working on a small region with Partners of three comparable conflicts; and involving officials in reentry workshops, making them into “one and a half track” exercises—all these can improve and add new dimensions to the workshops. Once the basic principles are understood and applied, there is no reason not to explore jointly the construction of new formats.

Finally, to the best of my memory, I have thanked all those who inspired and helped us during the years of experimenting with IPSW. But many ideas have been transmitted anonymously, and I do not want to finish without acknowledging and apologizing to those whose names are omitted from the reference section. We have not sought to provide the reader with an extensive reference library. As mentioned, this section of the book is meant as a manual for action, and we trust that you will share with us the feeling that the main purposes of this type of work are to encourage the multiplication of this process and to support the development of a culture of conflict resolution among the nations that most need it.

As stated throughout, the purpose here is to provide a workable, effective and enlightening process of conflict transformation. It may not always work as planned, but the effort must be made. It is our hope that the facilitators and Partners who partake in these exercises will not only learn for their personal enrichment but also share methods that have worked best for them, and so add to the ongoing development, evolution and expansion of the general IPSW model.

It is also our hope that through the use of these procedures, second track conflict resolution can become a more powerful and practical aid to first track diplomatic efforts, as well as a viable alternative to the violent acts that are the plague of ethnopolitical and other disputes.

Paying Attention

Face the person who is talking.

Notice the speaker’s body language; does it match what he/she is saying?

Listen in a place that is free of distractions, so that you can give undivided attention.

Don’t do anything else while you are listening.

Eliciting

Make use of “encouragers” such as “Can you say more about that?” or “Really?”

Use a tone of voice that conveys interest.

Ask open questions to elicit more information.

Avoid overwhelming the speaker with too many questions.

Give the speaker a chance to say what needs to be said.

Avoid giving advice, or describing when something similar happened to you.

Reflecting

Occasionally paraphrase the speaker’s main ideas, if appropriate.

Occasionally reflect the speaker’s feelings, if appropriate.

Check to make sure your understanding is accurate by saying “It sounds like what you mean is . . . Is that so?” or “Are you saying that you’re feeling . . . .”

This ladder illustrates what different degrees of consensus may sound like. It moves from the clearest level of consensus to that showing most concern about the process.

1. “I agree wholeheartedly with the decision. I am satisfied that this decision was accepted by the group.”

2. “I find the decision to be acceptable.”

3. “I can live with the decision.”

4. “I do not totally agree, but I will not block the decision, I will support it.”

5. “I do not agree with the decision and would like to block the decision being accepted.”

6. “I believe there is no unity in this group. We have not reached consensus.”

1. The more intense the experience has been, the greater the chance for distress or dissatisfaction with any questioning about the “new you” when you return. You may need additional time to re-acclimate yourself back home. Adjustment may be aided or hampered by close relationships, personality issues and work stress. Allow more time than you t

yourself as well as with people at home. Also keep contact if possible with someone from your new network. They will probably be experiencing some of the same things.

3. Although you have had time to process what you’ve learned, those at home have not. Remember how skeptical you were initially. Allow the same period of skepticism for colleagues and friends at home. It's a classical case of lag time between learning something in a cognitive way and experiencing it as reality.

4. As you describe what you’ve learned, be aware of oversimplifying or under-simplifying. Descriptions of past happenings bring visions to you that are inaccessible for those who were not there. Set a scene and then fill in the activity only to the level that you think is of interest. Monitor how others receive your information and modify your descriptions accordingly. If you want to incorporate what you’ve learned successfully, do not bore people or set unrealistic expectations with any proposed changes.

5. The things that you are bringing back home will be questioned. Avoid defending them or the whole experience as the “right way of life.” It may help if you share some negative aspects of your experience as well as the positive ones. It keeps your eye on reality and puts the whole experience in a more acceptable light.

6. Feedback is valuable. People will be more comfortable with you if they can tell you how your stories about your experience sound to them. It also provides an excellent way to modify any ideas that are not accurately reflected.

7. Learning continues long after presentation of material. It is not at all unusual to have “aha” experiences after returning home. This kind of realization is particularly likely after laboratory or experiential learning. It is refreshing to know that learning of this kind is continuous and may be triggered at any time.

8. Seek colleagues and friends who share your concerns and values. It is with these people that you will find the support necessary to implement change. Using allies to best advantage will spread excitement for your ideas farther than you can.

9. The culture of experiential learning is not accepted or understood globally. Be prepared to explain things in a very concrete sense. Avoid buzzwords or phrases and remember that some of the more insignificant aspects of the experience for you might be quite powerful for others. Respect others’ learning process as the leaders of your group respected yours.

10. There is never enough time to practice things that you’ve learned. If you can share, try learning by teaching others. Expect some mistakes, realizing that practice makes perfect.

11. Learning in a classroom or laboratory is temporary and needs to be both nurtured and reinforced before it becomes permanent or institutionalized.

These eleven guidelines are but a few of the areas that need to be reviewed periodically. Be sensitive with yourself and others, and you will find that reentry brings opportunities of which you never even dreamed.

1. The more intense the experience has been, the greater the chance for distress or dissatisfaction with any questioning about the “new you” when you return. You may need additional time to re-acclimate yourself back home. Adjustment may be aided or hampered by close relationships, personality issues and work stress. Allow more time than you think will be necessary before judging success or failure.

2. Because of the closeness established with other participants in a relatively short period of time, there may be an additional sense of loss when you return home, as well as a sense of jealousy from those close to you upon your return. Be gentle with

Notes

1. For a more systematic approach used in environmental conflicts, see Pritzker and Dalton’s (1990: 19), “negotiated rulemaking.”

2. I learned this exercise from a UNICEF facilitator.

3. For further discussion of self-determination and microstatehood options, see Duursma, 1996.

4. To illustrate how competitive norms result in confrontational attitudes, the “Robbers’ Cave” experiment may be cited. This involved vacationing students who, after a fun week of camping, were separated into two contending groups through a series of competitive games. The organizers kept the score close to a tie and promised attractive rewards for the team that achieved the highest points. The students soon adopted escalatory, adversarial attitudes devaluing the other side, assuming that the objective was to prove their superiority. This can be compared to a declamatory forum such as the UN, where delegations often speak at cross-purposes (e.g., Cuban and American delegates) and where the main effort seems to be scoring points over other delegates rather than convincing them.

5. This is a tale developed from a story by Edward De Bono. A poor farmer with a beautiful daughter was indebted to a spiteful moneylender, who came to demand either repayment or the farmer’s land. The farmer did not have the money and was preparing to give up his land when the moneylender saw the daughter and suggested another idea: “I will give you a chance to keep your land free of debt, if you allow me to marry your daughter.” As the farmer hesitated, he added: “Even better, I will let you try your luck. I shall pick up two pebbles, one black and one white, and if your daughter can choose which hand has the white one, she is free and the land is yours without any bonds.” The farmer felt miserable, but his daughter told him she was willing to take part, because they had no other choice. However, she noticed that the moneylender had picked up two black stones and put one in each hand. As she was looking around in dismay her lateral thinking process kicked in. She suddenly hit hard on one of the moneylender’s hands, and a black stone fell to the ground. “So sorry,” she told him. “But now I choose the other hand. If the stone in it is also black, we are both free.”

6. In some countries the exercise is widely known. An alternative is: We have nine golden balls, eight solid and one hollow; how can we discover the hollow one in two weighings? The answer is not starting from one or nine, but weighing three on each side the first time, and then taking the less heavy three (the third set, if the first two were equal) and weighing a second time, one on each side. Either one of the two will weigh less (it is hollow), or if both the same, the remaining one is hollow.

7. There is a Chinese fable that illustrates creative win-win solutions. A man was given his wish to see the difference between heaven and hell before he died. When he visited hell, he saw tables covered with mouth-watering foods of all kinds, but all the people there were hungry and angry. They were forced to sit one meter from the table using chopsticks one meter long that made it impossible for them to get any food into their mouths. When he visited heaven, he was surprised to see exactly the same situation, except that the people were well fed and happy. What is the difference? In hell people were trying to feed themselves without success. In heaven they were feeding each other.

8. A Peruvian colleague has suggested another method in the event of a second brainstorming session. This involves giving each participant five large index cards and asking them to write in large characters (with different-colored markers) one idea on each card. After about ten minutes of separate idea creation, the participants read out one idea at a time and post them in different groupings on the wall. There is no need at this point to label their groupings. Only later, when the participants are to be divided into smaller working groups, are these lists divided according to clear criteria. This second method has the advantage that ideas are normally better drafted; the first method provides more of a creative stimulus, through the collective enthusiasm of generating ideas together.

9. Avoiding (when the relationship and goal attainment are not more important than confrontation); competing (when relationship is not important, but achieving the goal is); compromising (when both goals and relationships are moderately important); accommodating (when relationship is more important than goal attainment); and colla-borating (when the relationship and goal are both important to all sides).

10. We draw the line for consensus at at least level 4.

11. Given the complexities in highly structured approaches such as IPSW, there has been some polarization of attitudes in the field of conflict-resolution training across cultures, between “prescriptive” and “elicitive” approaches (Lederach, 1995). On the one hand, the more anthropological “elicitive” approach considers that the best approaches to conflict can be found in the Partners’ own cultures and traditions and that the facilitators need only to help local partners bring out and refine techniques that may have been there for centuries, though perhaps only understood implicitly or subordinated to less appropriate practices which may have been imposed by foreign domination. Such a methodology implies a hands-off strategy confined to training “as an opportunity aimed primarily at discovery, creation, and solidification of models that emerge from the resources present in a particular setting, and responding to needs in that context” (Lederach, 1995).

On the other hand, the innovative methods developed mainly in the West by political and social psychologists and others can be powerful new tools for change in societies where conflicts have been brutal and protracted. Since traditional authorities may be providing mixed messages, third-party intervention may be needed to provide a fresh beginning, as exemplified in the previous days of this workshop. In the spectrum between the two approaches, I have tended to advocate this more hands-on approach as the more effective method, on the basis of my own background in a region of conflict. But we really need to go beyond this dichotomy in favor of an approach that aims pragmatically to incorporate “the best of each culture.” Indeed, we have integrated into the IPSW ideas generated in non-Western cultures and incorporated the feedback of many workshops provided by Partners worldwide, producing a more global approach. We suggest discussing this issue openly with the participants, asking them to what extent current or traditional conflict-management processes are adversarial, accommodating (yielding to power), compromising or integrating (problem solving). Before recommending that they try the “old way” we suggest offering a “new way” and letting the Partners consider the advantages of each.

12. Another example of the need for translation of basic concepts is the term “second track” diplomacy. In the Latin American context, there is a need to clarify that this approach has nothing to do with the “track two” operation that President Nixon’s White House and the CIA conducted in Chile when attempting to overthrow the socialist president Salvador Allende through the use of “dirty tricks” and covert operations. Nor is this the “second track” which U.S. senator Torricelli used to try to destabilize Fidel Castro’s Cuba by supporting antigovernmental activities. In Spanish, the term segundo carril is associated more with a negative connotation than segunda via, and one should be careful to clarify from the beginning differences such as these.

13. Study conducted for E. Kaufman and J. Davies (CIDCM) by Keiko Suzuno and Kana Fujii, “The Buraku and Korean-Japanese in Japan” (University of Maryland, 1999).

14. “Critical for the process of healing is the mutual acknowledgment of loss and hurt which make it possible to go on with a relationship” (Volkan, 1985).

15. For further information, contact the author, the WIAM Palestinian Center for Conflict Resolution, Bethlehem, or the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

16. “Monuments, inanimate objects with psychological significance, can facilitate an end to the mourning by linking external events to internal processes. Public shared rituals can serve the same function. What is critical here is the mutual acknowledgment of loss and hurt, which enables each community to complete a grieving process and establish a new relationship” (Ross, 1995).

17. For a development of this subject see Kaufman and Bisharat, 1998.

18. Based on a research project on English as a second language with a conflict-resolution curriculum conducted by Carrie Shaw at the College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park. This later resulted in an application involving a two-week “English for a Better Tomorrow” curriculum developed by her at CIDCM for the “Partners in Conflict in the Transcaucasus” program.

19. Fhrolich and Oppenheimer, 1996. This publication is one among the many relevant to the field produced over the years by the same authors, with whom I am currently working.

,

9 (track II/citizens)

Sharing the Experience of Citizens’ Diplomacy with Partners in Conflict

Edy Kaufman

The two following chapters present a practical application of well-researched collaborative problem-solving methods to deal with the world’s conflicts, including political, ethnic, religious or local. In the literature on these sometimes intractable issues, words such as “resolution,” “reduction,” “management,” “regulation,” “transformation,” “dissolution,” “settlement,” and “containment” are all used to illustrate different preferred outcomes of problem-solving exercises. The methods of dealing with conflict consist of mainly two types: resolution or transformation, and settlement or containment. This book is concerned with the former, stressing cooperation through information sharing, relationship building, and joint analysis to address the root causes of conflict. We are of the school that seeks resolution, because if underlying causes are not dealt with in a settlement, another conflict can spring up where the first one left off.

Track-two diplomacy has been developed mainly in the United States for this purpose. I have found that the term “track two” often has a different connotation in the South, however, referring to unofficial negotiations by a small political elite. “Citizens’ diplomacy,” as used in the title of this chapter, is the term preferred particularly by my Latin American colleagues, prominent civil society activists who use these techniques to empower them both in generating advice for the elite and for engaging in grassroots-level dispute resolution.

The practices outlined in this section for conducting innovative problem solving workshops (IPSWs) are offered as one model for working with unofficial citizen representatives of the parties as “Partners in Conflict.” They are designed to facilitate resolution of a conflict based on transformation of the parties’ perceptions and attitudes, and on addressing not only potential elements for settlement of the present dispute but also its underlying causes through a reconstruction of the relationship between the parties (Bloomfield, 1995). Complementary to classical diplomacy, second track or citizens’ diplomacy is considered an effective means especially for dealing with protracted communal conflicts—prolonged identity-driven disputes accompanied by fluctuating and sometimes high levels of violence. It is difficult to convey in writing the richness and validity of this type of program, and we are aware of no other attempt to present it in such detail.

What brings us to share some of our learning experiences is a sense of urgency in the desire of those who have participated in the workshops to have written materials to build on in furthering the process of conflict resolution in their communities. Workshops have been held by and with Partners in Conflict from Middle Eastern civil society as well as from Central Asia, the Caucasus, Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America.

I have been eager to disseminate our IPSW model also for personal reasons. My experiences working in the 1980s with fellow Israelis and Palestinians at the Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem made it clear how vital this information could have been for maximizing the effectiveness of our work. During this time, and throughout the first Intifada (Palestinian uprising), we managed to maintain a sustained dialogue between the two parties, without any professional tools save our sensitivity, sense of equality and respect, and political judgment. I believe that in returning to Jerusalem now after developing facilitation skills in track-two diplomacy as developed in the United States, I am better able to help those who are committed to renewing or moving forward a difficult peace process. This chapter thus represents a lateral transfer of expertise from my work as a scholar-practitioner in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (South-South transfer of experiences), which has been enriched by my work elsewhere while based at the University of Maryland’s Center for International Development and Conflict Management.

The term “Partners in Conflict” is intended to underline a common identity among participants in our workshops, such as a shared occupation or profession (e.g., academics, journalists), attributes (e.g., gender, religion), mutual concerns (e.g., environment, development), or common region (e.g., Caucasus, Middle East, Andean countries). This common identity must be based on dimensions different from those that are used to characterize the conflict (such as ethnicity, religion, language, and territory). When a peace accord has been reached and the participants are brought together to assist in its implementation and sustainability, we have referred to them as “Partners in Peace” (e.g., Israelis and Palestinians in the late 90’s; Northern Ireland Catholics and Protestants).

The program of exercises for Partners in Conflict (hereafter called “Partners”) is for the purpose of building bridges across sometimes wide divides, by stressing commonalties. It is also meant to develop an “epistemic community”—a group of individuals who share collective understanding relating to their own issues and problems. Emphasizing commonalities and a shared identity while acknowledging basic differences encourages the establishment of a solid link between the two groups. An interesting example is bringing together people who live on each side of a border between countries in conflict. These individuals, in spite of their differences, share a certain frontier identity. Often ignored in the peace process, which is negotiated by diplomats and politicians in the capitals, these citizens can play a major role in the consolidation of a lasting peace.

Such “team building” requires not only technical input. It goes much deeper, exploring ways for Partners to transform their relationships with one another by awakening empathy and learning to move from adversarial to collaborative attitudes. It is not our purpose to erase the border between groups in conflict, as this would only make conflict resolution more difficult to achieve. As Rouhana (1995) argues, “The strength in the new relationship between the two teams is based on each team’s unshakable group identity and commitments” (see also Kelman, 1993).

In the following pages we highlight a sample day-to-day curriculum that has been developed over a decade of experimentation. For each topic we explain the rationale and practical application of the IPSW approach. Often there is a degree of skepticism in trying alternative dispute-resolution methods, either from pragmatists who come from a realpolitik school of thought (e.g., Bercovitch, 1984; Zartman and Touval, 1985) or from those suspicious that it may be a “group therapy” approach, not seen as having much value outside North American culture). To overcome this skepticism, we suggest sharing the program’s rationale to provide transparency and encourage full participation.

In broad terms, the program moves from the establishment of a working relationship among the Partners to the establishment of a cooperative problem solving attitude, through building skills for a creative thinking process and then applying them to the concrete issues at stake (Deutsch, 1998). Transitions from one stage to another cannot be rigidly structured, because the rate of participants’ progress determines the rhythm of the workshop. Further, this ambitious menu could be devoured in an intensive two weeks; however, in the face of financial and temporal constraints, selection is usually required. We simply provide an optimal IPSW, leaving to the creativity of the organizers the task of adapting it according to their needs and experience. Those readers who are anxious to begin experimenting with the workshop without familiarizing themselves with the know-how of workshop planning, may go straight to the show-how, beginning with the section entitled Day 1.

Preparations

The planning of a project in citizens’ diplomacy starts with a needs assessment defining the issues at stake and the dynamics of the conflict to be addressed (see Gurr and Davies, this volume). Normally, this requires working with local partners (co-organizers or cofacilitators) and a visit to the area to engage in dialogue with stakeholders and potential participants. The facilitators may explain the IPSW and its value as part of a longer-term process, and even provide a short demonstration.

Location

The meeting place for IPSW should have, if possible, an established tradition of peacemaking, lending an atmosphere that calls on the Partners to make meaningful contributions to the workshop. This is preferable to a modern hotel, which often masks rather than reflects the country one is in. Success in the workshop is directly related to the participants’ state of mind, and having the proper surrounding conditions is not a trivial matter.

Near Jerusalem, for example, the Tantur Ecumenical Institute has become a symbol of dialogue and tolerance. It is located next to a check post, one gate facing Jerusalem and the other looking to Bethlehem in the West Bank. It is enough to see the landscape from the roof of the building to obtain a sense of the urgency in seeking solutions to a sad surrounding picture. In Italy, Santa Anna di Stazzema, the site of the assassination of more that 500 women and children by retreating Nazi troops, has been transformed into a welcoming National Peace Park.

A live-in setting too can often provide an intensive workshop environment that a nonresidential setting cannot (Cohen et al., 1977). Joint accommodations for Partners can be a source of trust building, but they must be planned carefully. Explicit criteria other than the conflict itself should be advanced for selecting who will share accommodations with whom, such as by gender, profession, or even lottery. I am reminded of a summer camp in Italy for Israeli and Palestinian teenagers, and the excitement of a fourteen-year-old boy from Tel Aviv about the fact that upon arrival he had been put in the same room as a Palestinian child. “I am sure Shamir [at that time prime minister of Israel] never slept with a Palestinian in same room,” he told us.

The main meeting space should normally be arranged in a circle of chairs, with easy access and moveability as required. A circle is nearly universally appreciated as nondivisive, and it can expand to include all or shrink to keep people together when others may be absent. The facilitators should be seated in the circle with everyone else. A flipchart should be available.

Meals and parties are also important times for trust building, as they provide a friendly and unstructured setting for discussion; they may also be designated for small-group meetings or planning sessions. The Partners should also have common areas where they can spend nonorganized free time together.

A commitment should be made to absolute confidentiality, and the workshop location should enable this to be honored. Conducting the workshop in the city of residence of the participants is a source of disruption, even if it is safe. A resort or distant university campus generates a positive predisposition for experimenting and learning. Being away from the conflict and the Partners’ usual places of living and working is strongly recommended, at least for the initial stage.

Level of Conflict

There has been much debate in the field about the best time to intervene in a conflict, and to what extent the conflict needs to have “matured” in order for these types of workshops to be effective. Does it need to be a manifest, rather than latent, conflict? Can the workshop be conducted before widespread violence erupts, or is it necessary to wait until hostilities become stalemated? This latter stage is the point at which parties to the conflict are likely to be most receptive, but preventive action is always the better option. Protracted communal conflicts, like those in Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, or Israel/Palestine, are particularly suitable to this approach to conflict resolution. Our experience has been that IPSW can be used at different stages, with the objectives and techniques used adapted to the relevant conflict level. In more than one case unforeseen tragic events have occurred during the workshop, and it is better to plan in advance, based on a good needs assessment, how to respond to such crises.

While emphasis has been put on track-two diplomacy preceding official negotiations, it is also important to support track-one peacemaking with the more flexible collaborative problem-solving process. The Oslo accords between Israelis and Palestinians demonstrated the potential of such back-channel communication for stalemated official discussions (Kreisberg, 1996). The informal negotiations that preceded this agreement were eventually endorsed and worked out in detail through traditional diplomacy. At that time, peacebuilding efforts among members of the broader civil society were assumed to be no longer needed but were recognized as a priority once more after Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination and threats to the lives of Hosni Mubarak and Yasser Arafat from extremists in their own societies (Kriesberg, 1996).

We have also experimented successfully with IPSW in border disputes that have been latent, as with our Ecuadorian/Peruvian Partners at the prenegotiation stage following their 1995 war, during track-one negotiation and postpeace accord. Even when violence is sporadic and of low intensity, it can help the cause of peace if the weaker side or “underdog” (very few conflicts are among contenders of equal weight) is at least recognized as a proper partner for informal dialogue and has an opportunity to respond to pressures from the other side.

The IPSW workshop can also be applied to “ethnic tensions” at a level below what is recognized as ethnic conflict. However, the Los Angeles riots and more frequent incidents of violence in Jerusalem are not separate issues so much as points on a spectrum. The methods described here are pertinent to both.

The degree of maturity of the conflict determines, in part, the selection of exercises. If no face-to-face contacts have occurred, for example, more work needs to be invested in ice-breaking and trust-building aspects in the initial stages. In the words of Patrick Regan (1996), “although characteristics of the conflict affect the probability of success, policy makers seeking to maximize this probability would do better to focus on how to intervene rather than when.”

Types of Participants

The IPSW training lends itself best to candidates from similar sectors of the competing groups. Their status may range from influential formal or informal policy advisors and public figures to professional groups (journalists, educators, young diplomats) and grassroots activists (representatives of human rights organizations, trade unions, students). An ideal participant for second-track diplomacy would be someone who is close enough to the center of power to have some sort of influence over decision makers, political elite, and/or public opinion, without suffering the downside of being constrained by an official position in the governing structure (Rouhana and Kelman, 1994).

Collaborative problem solving is not as strong an option for official diplomacy, because policy makers are generally too aware of their constituencies to risk going through an open-ended process of change, or to role-play or otherwise engage closely with adversaries. Exceptional cases do occur, but in general, the approach does not appeal to officials. However, in the post-Cold War era, military and diplomatic forces in peacekeeping operations or in border areas with guerrillas or paramilitary forces need to utilize dispute-resolution techniques to placate the tensions endemic to such regions. Within this scope, collaborative problem solving is indispensable as a supplement to governmental mediation efforts.

The program is applicable to Partners in domestic as well as international or ethnopolitical disputes. Examples from our experience include convening the proponents and opponents of separating schools for speakers of the Kazakh and Russian languages; the World Bank’s and Inter-American Development Bank’s ambitious plan of education reform in Bolivia, opposed by the strong teachers’ unions; the militant taxi drivers’ and indigenous groups’ strike in Ecuador against government gasoline price increases; and the debate between the government and the church in Peru on the use of contraceptives. Other interstate issues suitable for second-track workshops include control over common-pool resources such as rivers, aquifers and international waterways, and other ecological disputes.

It is also possible to use these techniques for pedagogic purposes, attracting university students or other interest groups to normal classes or mock workshops. This is an excellent approach for broad-based skill building. Simulations require knowledge of the history of both societies and their conflict in order to generate serious and realistic solutions (Rouhana and Kelman, 1994). It may require more preparation to engage efficiently the participants in some aspects of role-playing, but this can be achieved within the structure of a regular class.

The inclusion of a few “real” Partners in such simulations can add value for both sets of participants, with many points for cross-fertilization. At the University of Maryland, we have had exciting experiences involving our students in projects with their peers from Israel and Palestine, at College Park and in Jerusalem. In pluralistic societies one often finds local constituencies (in this case American Jews and Arabs) who identify with the actors of the distant conflict. This not only brings the dispute closer to home but also presents to the facilitator/teacher the challenge of developing empathy toward the perspectives of the other side as needed to bridge the gap between the Partners.

Selection of Participants

To make sure that the best candidates are chosen from a large pool, it is important to rely on objective criteria and to avoid personal preferences. Before the selection process, consider what would be the optimum group composition, including “mirror” types from the two sides and the best balance of age, experience, gender, etc. of potential participants. Care is needed with ethnopolitical conflicts where there may be different cultural norms regarding roles of gender, age or occupation groups. Ensuring equal status and the ability of participants to meet over extended periods and under difficult circumstances are vitally important.

Particularly in cases where Partners are brought from areas of conflict to workshops held in affluent societies, additional motives for their traveling—such as sightseeing, shopping, and saving per diem stipends for families in precarious circumstances—cannot be ignored. To a large extent, these are legitimate secondary motives, and organizers may need to allow some free time for sightseeing, etc., before or after the workshop. At the same time, the facilitators must be sure that participants understand and are committed to the real purpose behind the workshop. They are not expected to attend a regular conference with papers and discussions, but they are expected to be open to new ideas, personal growth, and possible changes in their points of view. When selecting participants, it is difficult to evaluate attitudes and personalities via correspondence or telephone interviews. One “wrong” person can spoil an entire group. The best way to reduce this risk is through a personal, in-depth interview on location after a spoken and/or written presentation. Another advantage of face-to-face communication is that it is easier to obtain binding commitments from participants and to achieve personal relationships with them that will enhance facilitators’ credibility (Cohen et al., 1977). If relevant organizations see third-party involvement in choosing participants as infringing their autonomy and insist on nominating the candidates, there should be careful discussion of criteria.

Rouhana and Kelman suggest several additional criteria for the choice of participants. First, those being selected should enjoy credibility in their own society or group. This allows them to pass on what they have learned to the communities they represent, thus giving the workshop legitimacy and impact. If Partners are to achieve such trustworthiness, they must share mainstream political views with their groups or societies. Within this range, it is advantageous to have a broad spectrum of outlooks, to enhance the realism of the workshop, while avoiding candidates who hold strong political or personal antagonisms toward each other. The organizers should strive to also secure participants whose knowledge, experience, and personal integrity will help them respect the other side (Rouhana and Kelman, 1994; Kelman, this volume; Cohen et al., 1977). While we find it more important to help rebuild the “negotiating middle,” workshops including more enlightened representatives of two more polarized parties may work within these criteria.

We have stressed the need to select candidates who are in a sense already Partners in spite of the divide between them, in that they share one attribute already. We have also been successful bringing together matched sets of Partners from different professions or vocations. For example, a group of ten Ecuadorians and ten Peruvians we convened to deal with their border dispute included two environ-mentalists, two human rights activists, two heads of business organizations, two journalists, and two leading members of universities. Fairly early in the workshop they started to work across their divide in “affinity groups,” which were later very valuable in the brainstorming and reentry stages of the project. The potential contribution of the Partners was recognized by both governments when five out of the twenty members of “Group Maryland” were “co-opted” into the official negotiations. Once the peace accords were concluded, some returned to our track two efforts to build sustained support for the implementation of the agreements.

Number of Participants

The ideal number depends on many factors. In general, a small group of between ten and twenty members works best, including equal numbers from each side – if numbers are unequal then it is best to have the “underdog” over-represented. If there are three or more parties, some other criteria for balance may be important. For instance, in an international waterway dispute over the Nile River basin, with ten riparian states, it may be better to have a higher number of participants representing the key players, with percentages allocated based on the importance of the resource to each country. The total number of participants should not be lower than eight or greater than thirty. If the participants are together for an optimal period (fifteen days to a month or more) the facilitators can work more intensively with a core group and enlarge the number of Partners for special activities.

Despite any differences in the number of representatives, the consensus-building nature of the process ensures that all parties carry equal weight. No solutions are to be imposed on the weaker parties. At the same time, when brainstorming for policy-relevant solutions, participants are encouraged to take into account power politics and the real asymmetry of forces outside the workshop which are normal in conflict situations.

Organizers/Facilitators

The first generation of facilitators was raised in the United States and other Western countries. We are now increasingly finding facilitators from areas of conflict who are more familiar with the limits and possibilities in each case and with the specific regional cultures.

Criteria for facilitators include first, relevant personal expertise derived from practical experience. Second, they must be regarded as trustworthy (“honest brokers”) by both sides to the conflict (Rouhana and Kelman, 1994). Third, facilitators’ personal traits need to be considered, including need for control, need for structure, capacity for empathy, etc., since they will influence the management style of the workshop (Boardman and Horowitz, 1994).

Normally, facilitators, one or more as needed to ensure an adequate mix of relevant knowledge and experience, come from a third party. When anyone from a party to the conflict is included, the honest-broker criterion requires facilitators from both sides. They can often work better with each of the participating groups, as well as serving in specialized roles within the workshop, providing feedback and support to other facilitators, or serving as recorders. Facilitators may adopt a “process-content role division,” where one focuses on the content of the discussion and another pays more attention to the interactions of the group and its dynamics. They may adopt an active-passive approach, whereby one acts in a traditional role and others in a more passive role, mainly identifying with the Partners and thus providing necessary feedback (Auvine et al., 1978; Polzer, 1996). A staged approach to IPSW may start with organizers/facilitators assigning responsibilities to cofacilitators, chosen as the most suitable and interested among the participants.

At minimum, local advisors from the area of conflict should be involved in preparing the program. I have seen facilitators ask participants to hold hands, or take deep breaths and stretch. This may be useful, but unless it fits the context of culturally relevant experience, it may be rejected outright as superficial and thus reflect negatively on the entire project.

On the other hand, each culture will have its own customs that are worth using; for instance, working with Partners from the Caucasus made us familiar with the institution of a tamada. This involves having a “toastmaster” walk around the room at a meal or celebration, speaking to a number of good causes and honoring different people. Such traditions can be valuable in providing messages of unity in diversity and for reducing tensions among participants.

It is preferable that facilitators be chosen who have lived in foreign countries for a time, preferably in the region of the participants, and that they speak a foreign language, even if the exercises are conducted in English. A facilitator who has not only been exposed to but interacted with other cultures tends to have a less limited perspective of the conflict at hand and to be perceived by participants as open-minded.

Even with support from cofacilitators, facilitators should keep their own diaries as they work, so that they can add their real-time thoughts to the ongoing process of evaluation. They should also be aware of participants’ interactions, not only during the formal sessions but throughout other socializing opportunities. This is not a nine-to-five job. We have found that appointing one of our team members (preferably with similar ethnic background to the Partners) to be in charge of personal and social issues that come up during the workshop helps to improve relations among the Partners.

Duration

This model IPSW fifteen-day workshop is offered as optimal but will need to be adapted to cultural contexts and real-life demands. We have been able to host Partners anywhere from two days to several months. Hence the model is offered as a manual, or cookbook, from which facilitators should prepare their own menu, selecting recipes according to their needs assessment, type of participants, level and stage of conflict, etc. A systematic review of all aspects can determine the time to spend on each phase: trust building, skill building, consensus building, and reentry. Usually, it is advisable to plan for two or three consecutive workshops in the period of a year or so—possibly one in a third party’s country, followed by one in each of the Partners’ states, or in a border area, with equal time between sides. Such cases allow us to use the first workshop to socialize the participants into the general ideas behind the IPSW and to prepare a specific agenda for dealing with the specific conflict in subsequent workshops. To continue the first activity with subsequent face-to-face gathering is crucial for sustained commitment.

In this manual the days are not divided into sessions, since the timing must be decided according to the circumstances and types of participants, and must be sensitive to the progress being made. It may be necessary to improvise and slow down the process. The sequence of stages, such as moving from training steps to immersion in the participants’ own conflict, is what counts.

Frequently a tendency exists among participants to pressure the facilitators to “come to the point” and deal with the specific conflictive issues that brought them together. While sympathizing with this sense of urgency, facilitators do need to secure feedback that indeed most are ready to use their acquired skills to deal effectively with their own disputes. In general, the period of training should cover about a third of the initial workshop. Ample time must be allocated for the Partners to absorb the material and social experiences, and to feel comfortable. Coffee and smoking breaks should be allowed every one and a half hours or so, since if participants have to break ranks and leave the room individually, this could disrupt their rapport and the intensity of their work.

Preparation of the Participants and Facilitators

The participants should have a fairly good picture of what is expected of them when they arrive, and if more than one are from the same place, they should meet prior to the workshop, with the facilitators if possible. When such a visit has not been possible, we have at times been able to communicate with the help of video-conferencing equipment, arranged through the U.S. Information Service. On such occasions, we were able to speak separately to each team about technical details (location, weather, and degree of informality) and the role that the Partners would be expected to play, and to secure agreement on the ground rules. After having shared a draft program, we asked for suggestions and/or clarifications. It is important that if a visit is paid to meet with some of the Partners, the facilitators make every effort to meet with the other Partners as well (Rouhana and Kelman, 1994).

In cases of asymmetries between Partners’ levels of international experience, negotiation skills, or language fluency (the workshop may be held in a common foreign language, such as English, Russian or French), the organizers should empower the weaker side with some previous training,. Separate intraparty meetings may be required in situations of extreme hostility and violence, to build trust before the intergroup work.

We have frequently been asked if it is appropriate for the participants to meet government representatives (such as foreign ministry officers) for a preliminary briefing. We have tended to discourage this, unless we know it is an option available to both sides and that the officials will share information about related track-one negotiations without requiring the Partners to restrict themselves to the official positions. Nonetheless, often the authorities not only need to know about the workshop but also may deter their own nationals from participating without prior authorization.

The organizing team and facilitators must prepare a well-thought-out program with an explicit agenda to share with the potential candidates. Any relevant feedback should be incorporated before the workshop begins. As Auvine instructed, “Know exactly what you want to accomplish and make sure everything on your agenda relates to that goal” (Auvine et al., 1978). He also offers a checklist of seven ground rules for the construction of an agenda. First, select content that is relevant for the group; second, present material in a logical order; third, plan the time and know what exercises to drop if the time runs short, or to include if there is time left over; fourth, plan the workshop’s agenda so that there is a variety in pace; fifth, use different types of exercises involving all the senses; sixth, have a clearly defined beginning and end for the workshop as a whole and for every session; and seventh, do not forget to give the middle a meaning (Auvine et al., 1978).

Cofacilitators from parties involved in the dispute should be included in the planning of workshop activities earlier than other participants, since their feedback is usually crucial in setting up the program in a way that meets the needs and expectations of the participants.

Planning the Evaluation Process

Among the important issues to consider in project design are the standards by which a project is evaluated, who does the evaluation, and the extent to which it is a central part of implementation. The ARIA group (Rothman and Friedman, this volume) has developed interactive software that can help organizers check the internal consistency of goals between the facilitators, organizers, participants and funders. In a nutshell, action evaluation is meant to provide real-time, ongoing evaluation during the project, following criteria developed jointly by the participants and facilitators, helping Partners take ownership of the process.

Unless an alternative has been decided on, there should be fifteen to twenty minutes at the end of each day for a short evaluation and debriefing. Responses to an instrument such as the “One-Minute Evaluation” (box 9.1) should be analyzed every night by the organizers and the most interesting comments reviewed the next morning.

Box 9.1 One-Minute Evaluation

1. What is the most useful/meaningful thing learned during this session? __________________________________________________ 2. What questions remain uppermost in your mind as we end this session? __________________________________________________

Workshop Day 1: Getting to Know the Place and Each Other

This first day is about orientation. The Partners should be made familiar and comfortable with their surroundings and the procedures of the workshop. Participants should be shown about the premises and given some basic information. Visits as a whole group can be made to interesting nearby sites, or there can be a reception for the group at other institutions.

Being introduced as a group to others can generate interesting team-building dynamics among Partners. At this point, participants are perceived by others as a unified foreign team, whatever the cleavages among them. They are often identified by locals through a common attribute (e.g., the Middle Easterners, the Caucasians). The president of the University of Maryland, planning to give a short speech to Israeli and Palestinian students, told me that he could not find a clear physical distinction among them and asked if it was proper to mention this. Clearly, it was positive for the Partners to be recognized by their commonalities. In another workshop where Arab, Jewish, and African Americans worked together to encourage dialogue between their Israeli and Palestinian peers, they became the delegation from the University of Maryland, welcomed in Jerusalem as “the Americans,” something they stressed afterward.

This may also be a time for uninational meetings, particularly if the participants from one or the other party did not have the opportunity to meet as a group previously. There may be strong grievances and deep mistrust toward the other side, and it may be important for the facilitators to hold a session with each side separately in order to give an opportunity to communicate such concerns and learn how best to address them during the workshop.

In addition to an inspirational introduction to the site, practical information should be provided about house rules, routines, facilities, etc., so that in the following days the participants can concentrate on the substance of the program.

The remainder of the first day should be open to allow for adaptation to the new environment. This generates opportunities for groups of different origins to come together informally, sharing meals, overcoming jet lag, reading material provided to them, talking with the organizers about the program, etc. This is important because once the workshop is fully under way, the atmosphere may become more intense as details about resolving the conflict are thrashed out, and lighter moments may not be so frequent.

Day 2: Getting to Know Each Other and the Program

Objective and Rationale of Trust Building

The introductory segment needs to be used by participants to familiarize themselves with each other’s names, to discover similarities across the divide, and to set a participatory tone by encourage all participants to interact. Building trust is essential for a constructive workshop environment. This requires a breakdown of negative images, so that participants can enter into a critical dialogue.

There are many techniques available for the introduction of participants. Some traditional methods, such as simply stating names and affiliations, seem to be rituals to which people are not inclined to listen closely. Small nametags are not visible enough and may be perceived cross-culturally as a commercial gimmick. Instead of nametags, displaying a person’s name on a large sign attached to a table tends to attract more attention. Even with some creativity, there is a limit to what formal introductions can do. The exercises below are designed to break the ice more effectively and to allow the partners to begin to see some commonalities between them. Depending on the amount of time available, what is culturally appropriate, and the dynamics of the group, several of these ice-breakers should be used. Some exercises are more appropriate for informal settings such as a relaxed dinner; others can be conducted within the classroom. Rather than telling the participants that they are about to conduct an “ice-breaker,” since the word itself is a reminder of frozen or cold relationships, it is best to introduce it as “Getting to Know Each Other.”

Regardless of the combination of exercises chosen, it is important to establish early the role of the facilitators as a tool for the Partners to ease any communication difficulties between them. It should be made clear that the facilitators are not there to run the show but that the Partners themselves are responsible for doing the work and achieving results. The facilitators’ own presentations in front of the group are critical for a healthy workshop environment. The facilitators should introduce themselves not only as “experts,” with relevant experience that may validate their roles, but also as “people,” in order to lay the foundations for an egalitarian atmosphere in the workshop (Auvine et al., 1978). One creative way to arrange the seating not according to the sides of the conflict, a natural tendency in the initial stages, is to suggest to the participants to find their place in the circle according to their birthday (ask who has been born during the current month, help order them according to the date and then ask the rest to find out by themselves where to sit, by talking to the others).

Getting to Know Each Other (Ice-breaker Exercises)

Interviews

We can start the day by asking each individual to interview another participant whom he did not previously know and then have each pair present each other to the group. (This suggestion presents less abrupt means of creating familiarity among the participants than asking individuals to introduce a member of the other team.) For the interview it has been suggested to ask: Who is he or she? Where does he or she work? What is one thing that it is not apparent about him or her? and What skill or ability does he or she bring to the workshop?

Introducing Your Neighbor (A Variation on the Theme)

The participants should be paired by number and asked to introduce them-selves to their neighbors for a few minutes and prepare introductions of them for the group. Facilitators can provide some guidelines for the introductions, including characteristics relevant to the workshop. For example: What is it in his or her life story that brought him or her to take an interest in conflict resolution? What position has he or she held in a governmental or nongovernmental organization? What are some pertinent activities in his/her home country?

Name Histories (A Personal Favorite)

This is best conducted over a meal or in another informal setting. We ask the Partners in turn to tell us all they know about the origins of their first and family names, and nicknames as well, if they so desire. The best manner of applying this methodology is to ask if first names relate to a historic or religious figure, or an important relative, if the Partner was given a nickname and if he/she enjoys being called by it. The family name may have an interesting background, often related to a trade, place, or perhaps another fascinating story. Usually, even when some of the participants did know each other previously, in a superficial manner, they never had the chance to explore this part of their identity. A facilitator should take notes and provide some comments, stressing linkages and common trends between the names’ backgrounds. More than once, one finds that the participants do indeed have shared names, based on common linguistic origins, as is prevalent in Semitic languages. Once the facilitators have completed the tour around the room, including the hosts, the Partners themselves should be encouraged to ask each other questions and contribute to an analysis of the revealed patterns.

This activity can bring out some interesting commonalities. In a gathering of Middle Easterners, we found out that the names of all nineteen participants, whether they were in Farsi, Turkish, Arabic, or Hebrew, had a historical or literal meaning behind them, often describing virtues that the holders of the name were proud to emulate in their own lives (the Just, the Compassionate, the Generous, the Happy, the Grateful, the Blessed).

Ups and Downs (Another Personal Favorite)

This activity requires that participants who share an announced attribute (e.g., women) stand up, while the rest of the group remains seated and applauds. Then the inverse occurs. We usually spend fifteen to twenty minutes finding out many unknown shared qualities or characteristics, such as first-generation university graduates, places of birth, religions, numbers of siblings (up to twelve or fourteen sometimes), marital status, number of children, languages, travels abroad, etc. Those who are left standing together with an impressive accomplishment (such as speaking eight languages) should get a round of applause. Facilitators can opt for stressing a certain order that will give more salience to the “underdog.” This can be done by praising those with the higher numbers of siblings (calling for those who are the only child to stand up; one brother/sister, two, three, up to five, up to ten) or newcomers (asking for those who are three or more generations in the country to stand up, two, first generation; or third or more university graduates, two or first generation to rise). In the end, we ask the participants if there are any questions they would like to pose to the group. Sometimes they are interested to learn who is a vegetarian, or left-handed, but in other cases the search for common denominators includes painful experiences such as a relative lost in the war/confrontation, or having been a prisoner. In each instance, the facilitators need to think how to ask sensitive questions while at the same time maximizing the power of this exercise.

On one occasion, after going through some initial ups and downs, we asked Partners from Palestinian and Israeli universities to stand up if they had been born in a village or agricultural settlement. Then we asked those born in a city to rise, and then an additional question for those born in Jerusalem. We found ourselves clapping for a small group of young Israelis and Palestinians who felt united in their recognition by the others. To what extent this little moment helped for the later brainstorming session on the future of Jerusalem is hard to say, but it definitely created a productive atmosphere for subsequent discussions on the subject.

After completing this exercise, some time should be spent speaking about the importance of recognizing overlapping identities, and how in a situation of violence people tend to be defined only by one attribute that separates them (almost always nationality or ethnicity). When the Partners start to communicate with each other in the workshop, they soon find that they share much more than they had assumed, so that it becomes difficult always to pigeonhole each other into a dichotomy of one collective against another. In most nonviolent environments, we are inclined to recognize several important dimensions of our identities. To illustrate the variety of overlapping loyalties that people tend to develop in pluralistic societies, a definition of diversity such as that used by our diversity program at the University of Maryland might be circulated and discussed:

Diversity is “otherness,” or those human qualities that are different from our own and outside the groups to which we belong, yet are present in other individuals and groups. It is important to distinguish between the primary and secondary dimensions of diversity. Primary dimensions are the following: age, ethnicity, gender, physical abilities/qualities, race, and sexual orientation. The secondary dimensions of diversity are those that can be changed and include but are not limited to: educational background, geographic locations, income marital status, military experience, parental status, religious beliefs, and work experience.

While this definition calls for respect of differences, facilitators should stress the unifying elements and the value of attaching importance to more than one of these identities, such as gender, across the ethnic divide. For the participants it is perfectly all right to express a strong unifying identity (normally national or ethnic); at the same time it is also all right to explore other shared identities with the Partners that cross the divide. In principle, questions for “ups and downs” can include any of the parameters in the definition, but facilitators must remain sensitive to the Partners’ cultures. For example, asking heterosexuals or homosexuals to stand up is not appropriate in most contexts. Discussion of explicit criteria behind the exercise is recommended to explain why certain qualities are not used, at least for the present (Auvine et al., 1978).

First Jobs

Another simple but user-friendly ice-breaker is to ask participants to share what were their first jobs. Offering one of the facilitators’ experiences first and going round the room generates a warm climate and often stresses a commonality of humble origins or creative occupations.

Cultural Treasure Hunting

This icebreaker allows fifteen to twenty minutes for each person to wander around the room, talking to the others, and drawing out commonalities (hobbies, musical preferences or playing abilities, month of birthday). A gratifying outcome of the use of this exercise occurred when a Palestinian participant discovered he shared the same birthday as an Israeli woman. The resulting bond became very special, with the woman later offering the man home hospitality over a couple of days when he had to postpone his flight back home because of sudden heart problems. A second illustration of the success of this technique came out of a workshop near Quito, wherein two leaders of indigenous groups on both sides of the Peruvian/Ecuadorian disputed area met for the first time. When the two presented their seventh shared commonalty, they said, “We both feel that if, instead of the central governments, we were to have been asked to resolve the conflict, we would have done it long ago and at a much lesser price.”

Name and Hobby

Fun for young people: we stand in a circle, and the first person gives his/her first name and illustrates with a movement his/her hobby (basketball, piano, reading, etc.). The second repeats the name and hobby of the first and adds his/her name and hobby, the third includes the previous two and adds his/her own. The more we move on, the more difficult it is to remember; the other participants help the introducing person to remind him/her with their signs and body language. It is a nice, unplanned team effort.

Jokes

In some extroverted cultures it may be worth suggesting an evening sharing jokes, humor being potentially a powerful means to overcome inhibitions and deal with stereotypes. In the Latin American context, I was amazed to see the degree of openness and self-exposure involved in the national, ethnic and gender jokes shared.

Presentation of the Program

Objective and Rationale

The introduction to the program should be detailed and include discussion, making sure the ground rules are fully comprehended and accepted. Sharing the rationale behind the agenda is crucial for setting the right mood behind each activity, and it should be repeated as often as necessary. The need to be engaged in a learning mode prior to beginning the actual problem solving must be stressed. The approach to introducing the subject ought to promote a predisposition in the participants to open up to new ideas in the field, as well as to personal growth. At this stage, a few minutes should be put aside to acquaint the Partners with the basics of collaborative problem solving, the rules for consensus, and the adaptation of dissenters (all are explained below).

Why Do It?

The Partners may be wondering what they will gain from this workshop. We suggest listing the following five expected short-term outcomes. Firstly, they will be learning new skills which can be advantageous in private and/or public life. Secondly, links will be strengthened with others across conflict lines. Thirdly, the experimentation with problem solving will lead to the search for solutions, which ideally can be conveyed to policy makers and/or to the public at large. Fourthly, at a more intimate level, this may lead to personal transformation and new perceptions or attitudes toward the present adversary and toward conflict in general. Fifthly, the follow-up after reentry allows options for new activities that may open up new possibilities in professional lives and voluntary activities.

In general, a useful way to present the material is to request cooperation from the Partners for learning beneficial life skills and in giving the facilitators feedback on whether this process could be made to work in their own societies and environments, and on whether they want to, or may be able to, use this in their own right as educators or facilitators. For purposes of evaluating the achievements of the workshop at the concluding stage (day fifteen) we can also encourage the Partners to write for themselves their revised expectations from the workshop, now that the “deal” is clearer in their mind. An even better way to get the participants involved in the process is through the use of “action evaluation,” a method conceived by Ross and Rothman (1999; Rothman and Friedman, this volume), where the goals are interactively determined and articulated together with the participants, as they evolve during the workshop and longer-term follow-up activities.

This may also be a time to say a few inspirational words, making all aware of the uniqueness of the opportunity as well as its timeliness. Though culturally bounded, and perhaps superfluous in some low-context societies, it is always good to find some metaphors or expressions in the local language or traditions that can help the facilitators to reach out from the beginning.

A Note on Facilitation

One should not explain all the logic of the exercises before they are done, so as to prevent the participants being influenced by expectations and to allow them to discover how they act on their own. A post-facto examination is necessary, since we are working with people who are potential multipliers of these techniques. The premium time for this is briefly at the end of each day. In terms of personal transformation, introspection and self-assessment is left to individuals, although they may be encouraged to reflect out loud at a summing-up and evaluation session at the end of the entire program.

Often, participants will ask when discussion of their own conflict will begin. Only once the whole group is impatient is it time to move to the next phase. We avoid focusing prematurely on the Partners’ conflict, by making the transition gradual. Facilitators can give examples from their experiences in other workshops. If it is not yet time to start the search for consensus on innovative solutions, one way of bringing the discussion home is by asking participants to give examples from their own conflict while still in the trust-building or skills-building stages of the IPSW. The idea here is to avoid premature closure, or exposing Partners to more challenging situations without first obtaining deeper knowledge of the principles and techniques of conflict resolution. The move from conceptual understanding of the field to working together toward solutions can begin as soon as the facilitators sense it is appropriate.

When the threat of violence at home is high, it is essential to tackle the issue a priori, so an unforeseen act (terrorist bombing, massive killings by soldiers) will not wreck the entire exercise. Not long ago, we had a workshop with Egyptians, Israelis, Jordanians, and Palestinians in the Sinai the same day that Israeli bulldozers began to turn the earth to build at Har Homa on the Palestinians’ Jebel Abu Ghnaiem land. We were all concerned about an outbreak of violence, particularly a Palestinian professor from Bir Zeit University. We discussed how we would react were anything to happen, and this professor monitored the news during every break. Nothing dramatic occurred, and the workshop continued. A few weeks later I witnessed, as a participant in a Middle East second-track meeting in Helsinki, just the opposite take place. A few hours after beginning we heard the news about a bombing in a Tel Aviv cafe. We Israelis took in the news from all possible sources, including calling our families. Some participants wanted the meeting to continue, business as usual; others suggested that an Egyptian former diplomat and myself prepare a text expressing concern and based on commonly agreed principles. However, the atmosphere was too confrontational, and it was enough that one participant opposed such moves to prevent us going ahead. The lesson learned is that when the likelihood of disrupting acts is high, it makes sense to prepare the Partners up front for such an eventuality, rather than be shocked and disheartened by it and have the entire exercise made unproductive. The need to learn how to share the grief of the other when violence and terror occur in real-time situations needs to be incorporated into the IPSW (as discussed more fully below under the section on “acknowledgment and healing”).

Finally, the facilitators should also consider the possibility of granting a certificate or diploma of participation or successful conclusion of the IPSW to the participants, if this works as an incentive and is appropriate to the nature of the workshop. Such an action brings a sense of cooperative pride, can help in fostering a sense of achievement that can be shared by all the participants, and breeds a feeling of togetherness.

Introducing Facilitation

Depersonalizing the facilitators’ own roles in the workshop can be helped by introductory remarks on the role of facilitation, stressing widely recognized standards for such functions. It is worth explaining the different levels of third-party intervention, which range from early neutral evaluation to conciliation, facilitation, mediation, nonbinding arbitration, and, for official processes only, to power mediation, settlement conferences, and binding arbitration. It should be explained that facilitators are expected to play a much more proactive role than the traditional function of chairperson or moderator. I sometimes recycle a story learned from Bill Ury in the context of creative thinking but adapted to the role of the facilitator.

An old Bedouin at the verge of departing from this world calls his three sons and tells them of his will to leave to the older half of his camels, one-third to the middle and one-ninth to the youngest among them. They promise to respect his wish, but when he dies the counting of the camels totals seventeen, and they get into a futile argument and fail to divide the possessions as promised. At this time, a wise camel driver comes along and inquires as to the nature of the dispute. He then tells the sons: “Take my camel.” First, the sons feel embarrassed about dispossessing the poor camel driver of his camel, but he insists, and then something unexpected takes place. The older takes his half (nine), the second his third (six) and the younger his ninth (two)—totaling seventeen. The experienced old “facilitator” takes off with his camel and tells the sons: “Perhaps you can now solve problems by yourself.”

Partners should be encouraged to pay close attention to the methods of facilitation. When the Partners are back in their own countries, if they want to organize similar IPSWs, using the arts of facilitation will be necessary, and it is best that they try them as fully and early as possible. This includes motivating participation, eliciting alternatives, welcoming different points of view, setting an example of sensitive listening, maintaining an equal-time principle for the participants who wish to speak, summarizing ideas while stressing common ground, initiating and ending meetings on a positive note, etc. It is useful to have a handout on facilitation ready, since many participants consider themselves as potentially filling such a role. Occasionally, if there is good progress during the workshop, we have encouraged Partners to take over a session and cofacilitate with others. This experiment provides a team-building effort and consolidates the skills learned.

Facilitation may be very proactive, and perhaps it is best to be up front about it. Facilitators coming from other areas of conflict where negotiations have been successful (such as in South Africa and, for a while at least, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict) may bring added legitimacy and may use it to take more active leadership in moving Partners ahead more quickly. I sometimes apologize in advance for what may amount, at times, to hyperactive behavior on my part. If we build trust, such well-intentioned excesses can be understood by the participants and forgiven.

Humor and entertainment may be used by facilitators and are often beneficial in several ways, such as tension release, face saving, and as a means to reduce threat levels. However, the facilitators must be careful with the use of humor. Timing, ethical considerations, and power balance, as well as one’s own limitations need to be considered (Wimmer, 1994).

Debriefing is a unique opportunity for the facilitator to make transparent to the partners the meaning of each exercise performed. Given the experiential nature of the workshop and the tendency to avoid lengthy introductory lectures, the purpose here is to get the help of the participants in making explicit the implicit learning that may or may not have fully clicked in everybody’s minds. We want them to take ownership of the process both in terms of being able to replicate the activity back home as well as in becoming convinced that we are using adequate vehicles to build trust, skills and eventually consensus.

Last but not least, facilitators should help simplify the process by which Partners bring insights and skills developed over the course of the workshop back to their communities. Toward this end, facilitators should make explanations easily understood, so that Partners will have the ability to conduct their own workshops.

This is best done when two cofacilitators, one from each party, can do the job. Such cofacilitation is a phenomenon that has taken off with some Israeli Jewish and Arab facilitators who have decided to use their experience together. The legitimacy they have in pressing for tangible results for the workshop is much higher, though it may take a while to establish their record as honest brokers.

A valuable way to end the day is for participants to fill out a One-Minute Evaluation form (box 9.1) and to be asked for any last thoughts or questions. This form may be presented at the start or end of each following day, providing a constant participatory evaluation process that is of utmost importance to the success of the workshop. While the friendships, attitude changes, and insights that the Partners may gain from this experiment are important both for themselves and for the promotion of a conflict resolution perspective, the evaluation forms contribute to the practical success of the workshop itself. They do so by giving the facilitators information on what was effective and what was not during the day’s exercises, and on what should be added, changed or cut altogether. Although this evaluation and adaptation step is not listed again at the end of each day’s activities, it should nonetheless be remembered as an integral daily part of any successful workshop.

A reentry workshop, when the Partners meet for a second time or more, still requires some Day 2 ice-breakers, and allowance for airing the many grievances that may have accumulated in the interim. We can have a session in which people can speak their minds, most likely in an adversarial manner. It might be programmed as “Status of the Peace Process” or, as was done in a reentry workshop after the outbreak of the Al Aqsa Intifada in 2001, as “What Went Wrong” (WWW).

Day 3: Conflict Resolution in Theory and Practice

Once the Partners are fully immersed in the spirit of the location, have warmed up to one another, and understand the rules of the IPSW, the facilitators can proceed to a systematic presentation of the methods to be used and map it within the general area of alternative or appropriate dispute resolution (ADR). Exceptionally, given the experiential nature of our work, at this time, as we move toward skills building, we need to make a persuasive presentation of our underlying philosophy as well as the concrete product toward which the workshop is directed.

Introductory Lecture

Rationale and Methodology

This presentation should be structured according to the facilitators’ own approach. As a rule of thumb, more time should be spent on prognosis (possibilities for resolution) than on diagnosis (historical roots of the conflict). Playing back the video of the long history of fighting is not going to change the script, and while it is important at times to let participants express their adversarial feelings, the process that we are about to experiment with is essentially forward looking. The lecture need not be brief, and Partners should be encouraged to raise questions or comments. One can elicit interaction by making reference to common preconceptions or controversial statements they may have heard.

Outline of a Sample Lecture

Information on the dynamics of complex conflicts, and the history, process and applications of collaborative problem solving can be drawn from several of the chapters in this volume. Some points that I feel are important to include are:

1. Conflict can be seen as a constructive or destructive driving force, mostly depending on how it is managed. The term “transformation” should be distinguished from resolution, management, reduction, and termination (though in the workshop we may use them as synonyms). “Transformation” is most suitable for our IPSW method, since the expectation is to influence an attitudinal change and provide tools to help both sides cope with the tensions and problems arising along the road to reconciliation..

2. To help Partners understand how conflict can be viewed constructively, when culturally suitable, I have used sex as an analogy to conflict. Exceptionally, some individuals can sublimate or refrain from sex, but both sex and conflict are natural phenomena. Rather than repress them, the aspiration should be to make best use of them. A nonviolent outcome is preferable and is best when one channels it in an effort to obtain maximal progress toward satisfaction for both parties.

3. Asymmetry in power relations is a factor that needs to be recognized, and in conflict the temptation to act unilaterally is powerful. Such independent, one-sided behavior, however, may end in unstable outcomes: the stronger party may win a war but have difficulty in gaining peace. A lion cannot easily kill a fly; the weak have their own weapons and can make life for an oppressor untenable by means of terror, uprisings, and obstructionism. The fragile nature of coalitions among states and nations induces changes in configurations over time, and a single powerful country can eventually be forced to confront a group of individually weaker, but collectively stronger, actors. Hence, impartial reasoning requires that we put ourselves in the shoes of the “other.” Bill Ury has often quoted Gandhi as stating that practicing “an eye for an eye. . . we all go blind.”

4. Facilitators should present their own normative approach to conflict resolution. While advocating nonviolence as a priority goal, I would admit that war may sometimes be legitimate, such as in the case of self-defense or rebellion against tyranny, but it should be used only as a last resort, when all attempts to negotiate or apply nonviolent strategies have failed. And what about litigation, bringing the other side to a court of justice? Even if we respect the outcome to be fair—and this is not always the case—the nature of the system is that we either win or lose. We call it adjudication, and it may tell us “You are right,” but it also means, for the other, “You are wrong” and that your minimal expectations cannot be met. So it is better to try alternatives to both power politics and litigation (Davies, this volume). This appeal is surely justified when we try to reduce levels of conflict in our workplace, neighborhood and family. If we are bound to live together, we know that inflicting pain through one-sided impositions is not a good recipe for a durable friendship. My own conviction is that appropriate dispute resolution is not a panacea but is worth trying first, and for the long term, as it may often take time to bear fruit.

5. Do we need a third party to intervene? Agreed, the preference is that both parties in conflict should find ways of overcoming the conflict on their own by educating themselves on methods such as “principled negotiation.” However, it is not easy for parties that are in the escalation phase of a dispute, and often before or after a fight, to cool down by themselves. In many cases, a third party is needed to help them move to a resolution. Depending on the authority and resources of this third party, he/she can decide for the parties (arbitration), assist the parties to reach a compromise (mediation), or provide the two sides with the tools and skills that will enable them to invent jointly new options to deal with the immediate dispute and others as they appear in the future (facilitation). The first two may be more appropriate when dealing with single-issue, interest-based disputes; the third is recommended for dealing with identity-driven, complex conflicts. Often tangible and nontangible traits are part and parcel of the conflict, and a formalistic solution may not touch upon the more in-depth needs or help to improve the larger relationship.

6. Facilitators may conceive of their roles differently. Some emphasize the enormity of the problem, suggesting ways to learn how “to live with the conflict.” Others confine themselves to generating “dialogue groups” to continue over time, with the objective of reducing misperceptions and building personal trust. Our approach is more ambitious, since it moves on from this into consensus building toward action. The expected relative advantages provided by this interactive problem-solving approach, can be summarized as follows:

a. Many problems are not necessarily zero-sum but can be developed into win-win solutions.

b. Often we do not recognize the real needs hidden behind publicly stated positions.

c. Good will, sensitivity, and learned intuition are all necessary ingredients for finding common ground. But professionalization and a good knowledge of available techniques can make a real difference.

d. More formal ways of negotiating do not allow for full expression of creativity, exploring new ideas and putting ourselves in the shoes of the other.

7. As a corollary of this last point, mention should be made of the growing importance of track-two diplomacy with the end of the Cold War and the persistence of ethnopolitical conflicts that have deep roots and require the addressing of needs for recognition, security, perceived survival, dignity, or well-being (Gurr and Davies, this volume). These identity-driven hostilities are often exacerbated by irresponsible leadership, seeking legitimacy or power through playing on the fears of their own people, creating extremists even among intellectuals, academics, and professionals. Often, the bloody acts of fanatics and fundamentalists paralyze the diplomatic process; deep-rooted animosities call both for peacemaking among leaders and for broader joint reconciliation efforts.

Track-two diplomacy has also increased as a result of the process of globalization, which has expanded cross-border and international interaction, while also making involvement in international affairs more accessible to individual citizens and more relevant to their daily lives. There is an intrinsic difference between track-two and “back channel” negotiations, often run in parallel or in preparation for official negotiations. The latter is mostly conducted by emissaries of the governments, often security/intelligence agents or messengers with no authority to discuss issues. Track two, on the other hand, is conducted by nonofficial individuals, with the objective of generating new options, putting themselves in the shoes of the other, testing the limits of the possible. They may report back to officials in their respective governments, bring the new shared ideas to their peers within civil society, or try to affect public opinion through the media and other informal channels.

The Image of the Other

Objectives and Rationale

How one party to a conflict views the other side is a critical factor, affecting the way they deal with each other on all levels. Too often, different cultures or ways of life are seen as mutually exclusive, defined by contact with each other, and this polarity tends to reduce a conflict to “us” versus “them” terms. Ethnic prejudice and other forms of discrimination, based on gender, religion, social class, age, sexual orientation, language, and so on, have the same root. Polarization is more extreme when the image of the “other” is tainted by the use of violence, confirming the presumption that “they” are unreasonable and incapable of change (Cohen, 1994). This session should focus on showing how possible solutions are missed or undermined due to prejudice, fear or even hatred of the “other.” Focusing on the universality of this problem helps Partners to understand that their conflicts are not unique and are thus more likely to be solved as others have been. In most cases, there will be a resolution. The main issue here is using history to learn from previous conflicts and cases: not “if” but “when,” how and at what price. Our goal is to find ways of bringing the resolution closer, and thus reducing the cost in human suffering. The mechanisms of demonization of the enemy lead to “a scapegoating of him, the creating of a stereotypic picture. It tends to be one-dimensional, certainly not three-dimensional or fully based on reality” (Moses, 1996).

Exercise: “The Faces of the Enemy”

Sam Keen’s The Faces of the Enemy video, book, and guidelines for discussions , made during the last years of the Cold War, is a remarkable tool for creating awareness of the image of the adversary. It can be used as a starting point for a discussion of propaganda and demonization.

The Faces of the Enemy lays out many tools for structured discussions on the image of the other. Facilitators can choose from a menu of points and questions. If pressed for time, I would suggest a discussion based on two of his questions: “Do we need enemies? If we didn’t have them would we have to invent them to have somebody to blame for our problems?” and: “Why do we automatically suspect people who are different from us? Is the unknown always evil, dangerous, fearful?”

Exercise: Creating Your Own Exercise on Demonization

If one is not able to obtain The Faces of the Enemy, one can construct one’s own activity by finding demonizing cartoons or film clips in libraries, newspapers or, most easily, on the Internet. The cartoons do not need to be relevant to the particular conflict (it may actually be beneficial if they are not related, so that the partners can look at them more clinically), but they should clearly illustrate how one side demonizes the other. The partners can break up into groups to analyze the material and present the stereotypes found. The facilitator should elicit some observations, showing, for instance that each side more often then not demonizes the same things in the other

De-escalating Exercise

This is an important skill to develop. We can start with the Partners’ sharing their past or present experience of a conflict situation that got out of hand (e.g., Intifada Al Aqsa), when misperception of the other’s intentions and domestic politics resulted in tragic unintended consequences. Often there is not much time to look for optimal solutions, and one way to start down the ladder is by small gestures, often initiated unilaterally by the stronger side. The other could respond with another symbolic measure, and eventually these one-time gestures could become permanent rituals. But, as Kenneth Boulding used to say, “It is easier to do harm than to do good,” and Partners are reminded with dismay of their own sad experiences. In the discussion, provide illustrations of spiraling up (“You force me to do it,” “I am only defending myself”) and de-escalation (“We are both engaged in a self-destructive cycle,” “What can I do to decrease the level of fear that would not be perceived as a sign of weakness?”).

A proven method of de-escalating the disconsolation inherent in such a discussion, while at the same time keeping to the topic, is provided by a beautifully illustrated book by Dr. Seuss called The Butter Battle Book. This children’s story is of two friendly neighboring nations, whose disagreement over which side of the bread should be buttered escalates to a potentially nuclear confrontation. It is a parody that affords neither a happy nor an unhappy ending. The Partners themselves can go around the circle reading each a page of the story; then give ten minutes for putting on paper what they can imagine for one last extra page to the book, providing de-escalation scenarios. We end the session by again going around and each reading his/her suggestion for a “happy end.” We find out that preventing a situation from becoming extremely violent requires, among other things: investigating incidents to clarify what actually happened; forming a group of people from across the divide, a group that could be representative of people of good will from all parties involved; religious figures calling for dialogue under their auspices; controlling rumors to correct misunderstandings; third-party shuttling between opposing sides; asking sides to make pledges that such incidents will not recur; asking sides to offer reparation, restitution or compensation; and setting up agreed mechanisms to pre-empt a new crisis (Fisher et al., 2000).

It may have been a heavy morning and afternoon, and the participants should spend a little extra time digesting the information. If they require some fresh air for a late afternoon or early evening outing, this is a good time to call it a day.

Day 4: Dealing with Our Own Conflicts

When we start training ourselves in conflict resolution skills, it is important to underline that we do not want to change the ideologies, identities or basic values of the Partners. Our work is at two levels: firstly, to find a more balanced way to view the image of the “other,” renewing our attitudinal prism by taking into account how, in the process of socialization, we have been strongly influenced by common stereotypes and prejudices. Secondly, we aim for an improvement in the channels of communication. Bad news travels fast, and with a loudspeaker; good news needs to be retransmitted time and time again. In order to reduce misperceptions, we need to educate ourselves how best to articulate the message, how not to be distracted by the surroundings and how to listen effectively and elicit a sincere and clear response. Before going into the relevant exercises, some attention on setting a relaxed and confident tone is appropriate.

Confidence-Building Measures

Objectives and Rationale

While the atmosphere is normally calm and polite when dealing with conflicts at large, the closer the Partners come to their own issues the more tension enters the room and begins to affect the stakeholders. Anxiety should be met creatively. Before moving into these more sour moments, the facilitators can suggest to the participants that they adopt some relaxation or confidence-building measures based on acknowledged positive gestures toward each other. We can discuss examples, such as President Sadat’s decision to come to Jerusalem as an statement to the Israeli public about his peaceful intentions. This and other stories are skillfully analyzed by Mitchell (2000).

Possible Exercise

A recommendation culled from the field of marital counseling is that each team may be offered a bouquet of flowers of a different color. For every “good deed” enacted by one side throughout the workshop, the other party should offer a flower. This way, it may be that after a week one group may have obtained a large number of flowers of the color of the other group, or vice versa. This is perhaps too romantic for some cultures, but the principle of providing confidence-building measures during the workshop may help the participants to generate more effective reciprocal empathy toward each other when engaging in reflective analysis or brainstorming at a later stage. In a deeper sense, signaling conciliatory intentions increases flexibility in the process, and it can be done through acknowledging specific interests of the other party, willingness to change, showing the flag of the other, using a vocabulary that includes politically correct language of the other party, volunteering to conduct an activity, etc.

Focusing on Our Own Conflict

Objectives and Rationale

The Partners must now start to come to terms with their own conflict. This is a difficult session, as the Partners will be extremely sensitive to perceived biases in the presentation. Nevertheless, this is the time to start airing these conflicting points of view. I have often drawn a cone shape to illustrate how misperception of the real problems behind conflicts arises from an attitudinal prism structured from the belief system (values, ideology, religion), social constructs (prejudice, stereotypes, images), and (mis)communication. We do not directly work with the belief system but on building skills to overcome obstructions from distorted social constructs and miscommunication. The focus is now on dealing with the image of the “other” that we perceive as enemy, creating awareness for prejudice and stereotype reduction, and sensitivity toward the personal suffering that the conflict generates among participants themselves.

Exercise

To start the discussion, a documentary or interesting speaker on the conflict should be presented. Most protracted conflicts have generated films and documentaries, and the Partners can be encouraged to bring videos produced by their own governments or groups. Biases can be balanced by showing videos from both sides. One can also ask Partners on both sides to present their communities’ views of the conflict. We must be clear in asking the speakers to introduce only official or generalized positions, rather than their own personal views. This avoids putting them on record, possibly in a confrontational mode, and perhaps hindering their ability to change their opinions or attitudes at a later time.

An unstructured discussion should follow, in which the mood, fatigue, and general predispositions of the participants will determine when they may begin confronting each other over their shared problems. Within the limits of previously agreed ground rules appropriate to the culture, the discussion should be allowed to flow and run freely. It may often lead to escalation and confrontational interchanges, unless these have been proscribed. If it does, our hope is that the participants will begin to notice and realize how futile this type of exchange can be. If there are participants who show a predisposition to act as peacemakers, they may be encouraged to take an active role in reaching out to other, more adamant and difficult Partners.

Dealing with Our Stereotypes

Objective and Rationale

Stereotyping is a common phenomenon. We all have a tendency to generate prejudicial perceptions of the groups that we consider threats, particularly to our security needs. These deep-rooted images are part of the nontangible dimensions of the conflict, and without raising awareness they are difficult to change. As we develop a new image of the other party as similar or equal to us in important ways, we should also expect to find that they have had a low opinion of us. The following exercise can be used to generate an awareness of the Partners’ own limitations in judging the intentions, ulterior motives and designs of the other party. As a whole, the atmosphere produced from this session is usually tense but somewhat comical, with laughter often erupting as each side hears the perceptions held by the other.

Exercise: Mirror, Mirror on the Wall—Our Own Stereotypes

The group is divided into teams. Each party divides into an A team and a B team. The facilitators ask team A in both parties to provide a list of negative stereotypes of the other party. Rather than think about their own images, they are asked to look for the lowest denominator of prejudice and even bigotry in their own societies, to identify prevailing attitudes (focusing, at this stage, on negative aspects and terms). B teams are asked to conjecture what perceptions of their own people might be listed by the other party’s team A. After ten to fifteen minutes, the information can be shared. The A teams count the number of stereotypes and analyze the similarities and differences. Many interesting findings are likely to be revealed, including some shared images of the other. The same is done for B teams with a discussion on the high or low correlation between As and Bs.

The teams then return to their smaller groups but this time focus on positive stereotypes. This usually entails a discussion on whether it is possible to describe positive stereotypes, or if the term is used only for negative aspects. The same analysis should be done, but this time a comparison of good and bad stereotypes should be included. Often in a conflict situation the negative images accumulate far more than the positive. Does a shorter list of the latter in one group imply an asymmetry in the conflict? Does the weaker party tend to have more negative images attributed to it than the dominant party? Do we tend to project more negative images of ourselves as reflected in the eyes of the other (B teams) than the list provided by the other (A teams) would indicate?

A note to facilitators: In some cases, particularly in high-context cultures where strong wording about the other can result in long-standing uneasiness during the workshop and beyond, an alternative format can be explored, in which the sides are asked to imagine the traits of an “ideal” neighbor, implying that the imagined qualities do not reflect the current situation.

Exercise: Images of the Other

An alternate exercise (Blake, Shepard and Mouton, 1964) has the two groups write a brief description of themselves and their relationships with the other group. They are also asked to jot down how they perceive the other and its behavior. Each can be summed up in five or ten points. Usually the participants find it easier to develop the image of the other rather than that of themselves and are made aware that they are not so sure about their own conduct. In the next phase, the groups’ self-images as well as their observations about the other are made public. This allows for a comparison, which many times will show astonishing differences. The Partners may ask questions of the other group to ensure they understand correctly, and then discuss the different images. Sharp accusations may be voiced at this stage, and should be kept within agreed ground rules.

A self-diagnosis phase follows, with each group asking itself why its opponents perceive them as they do. Once a thorough discussion is conducted within each group, all meet again to share their diagnoses. It is hoped that this will lead to a more open and insightful debate, followed by a change in each group’s perceptions of themselves and the other party. Even if all the issues raised are not resolved, the participants are still given a more critical view of their perceptions. This may be summed up with a presentation on the problems arising from perceptions and how they can be worked through to lessen or change their negative impacts.

At this stage, there may be a strong residue of hostility if only, or mainly, negative representations were drawn out. Focusing on a discussion of mirror images or similarities can minimize this. There is no need to pretend that this stage must have a happy ending, particularly in light of the phase that follows. These mirror images show the enemy as the coward and us as the brave. Often, the side that perceives itself as the weaker and as seeking to redress the status quo has sharper and more negative images of the other. For example, while Ecuadorians historically have more grievances about Peruvians, the latter have more critical attitudes toward Chileans, whom Peruvians generally consider to be aggressors. Nations can select their main “enemy” and minimize the importance of others.

A note to facilitators: Debriefing can maximize the effectiveness of this exercise. First, it allows participants to internalize the main lessons of the exercise, making some of the implicit findings more explicit to all. Second, it provides participants with a clear-cut bottom line. An exercise in Ecuador on “feminist” and “macho” Latinos showed not only the prevailing stereotypes but also the feelings that were partially shared by participants themselves.

Discrimination and Prejudice—A Personal View

Objective and Rationale

Partners are asked to personalize their view of the conflict. Fear for personal safety and security can be a much more powerful driving force than nationwide goals. Fears are easily projected onto groups seen as competing for scarce resources, especially those with less familiar cultures, leading to dehumanizing of the other side and polarized “us versus them” thinking, with each group defining itself by affirming attributes not shared by the problematic other. Personalizing the conflict helps the Partners to more clearly see the human beings on the other side.

Exercise

The Partners are encouraged to share personal experiences, or those of friends or family, in which an element of discrimination, racism, bigotry, prejudice or negative stereotyping occurred. This is a time for sad news, perhaps mild cases of racial or national discrimination, or in protracted communal conflict, oftentimes cases of atrocities, prison experiences, torture, and death. When there is an asymmetry in the power relations between the disputants, that will usually be reflected in asymmetry of suffering.

If both sides have stories to share a more evenhanded evening will follow, but balance cannot be created artificially. In a workshop on “Coping with Terror and Violence: Learning to Share the Grief of the Other” that took place in Bethlehem, we heard numerous personal and family stories from our Arab participants and specially invited guest relatives of the “martyrs.” “Fortunately” (and I use this word with some irony), we did have a couple of cases on the Jewish side. For example, one involved a former airplane hostage from Entebbe, Uganda, whose hospitalized mother had been murdered by Idi Amin when he (Amin) was told of the successful rescue operation performed by the Israelis.

In addition to describing the incidents, the participants should be asked to recall if there was any attempt to deal with the events after the fact. More often than not, people let it pass, unattended, leaving bitter feelings to smolder. These wounds are cumulative and usually kept raw by aggravating remarks about the victim’s people. In some cases we have had “better” stories of acts of violence that led to offers, by some among the victimizers, of help and partial redress for the injustice committed. In case participants are slow to open up, the facilitators or local organizers can be prepared to share some of their own stories. For example, I have a short CNN news tape of my family involved in supporting the Palestinian family of a former domestic helper, father of four, who was killed by Israeli Border Police while working a small plot of land in his village.

This exercise can be used to generate discussion about human suffering and to analyze its effects on ethnopolitical conflicts; the cycle of violence generates feelings that can easily become stronger than those engendered by the original causes of the conflict. At this stage there may also be an opportunity to deal with issues of accepting responsibility for the actions of one’s own community, rather than continuing to deny and to attribute only negatives to the other party.

A note to facilitators: Facilitators should assess if it might be premature to evoke such strong reflections of the Partners’ own conflict and consider bringing them up at a later stage, during the exercises on “healing.” On the other hand, when teaching students from a country without a significant level of conflict, if the class is diverse enough, we often find ethnic tensions reflected in stories of discrimination or prejudice. Rather than simulate a case study, it is best for them to talk about their own life experience.

Intercultural Communications

Objective and Rationale

Partners should understand and develop skills to address the difficulties raised by intercultural communication, even when the Partners in many ways share the same cultural milieus.

Introductory Remarks

In addressing the barriers generated by distinct languages and cultural traditions, we should place them in the wider context of the way we talk and listen. How to improve the way we express ourselves is addressed below; the receptivity issue is integrated both in the “active listening” exercises suggested for the reflexive stage and in a section on understanding body language during the adversarial stage (see chapter 10).

As a short demonstration of intercultural barriers to communication, ask each group to prepare in a few minutes five hand, head or body gestures and see how many of them are recognized by the other side. This can also alert Partners to avoid the mistake of downplaying the significance of cultural differences in their case.

The demonstration can serve as a bridge to a brief exploration of two contrasting paradigms of communication: one is common in individualistic societies (such as the United States, Israel), associated with predominantly verbal and explicit, or low-context communication styles; the second is predominant in more collectivist, interdependent societies, characterized by a nonverbal and implicit, or high-context style (Cohen, 1997b). Based on a thorough analysis of these cultural differences, Cohen provides ten recommendations for international negotiators, which are also instructive for citizen diplomats—box 9.2 (see also Moore and Woodrow, this volume, for more detailed guidance in cross-cultural work).

Even where cultural differences are of minimal concern, it is important to educate ourselves to develop the elements of an optimal communication process: effective expression by the speaker, accurate reception by the listener, and the feedback required in a group setting to ensure a high quality of dialogue.

Box 9.2 Ten Principles

Exercise 1

The facilitators can ask participants to represent their own cultures or to play another, having first identified its key values and cultural norms for behavior. A skilled assistant, prepared to role-play a fictional culture with highly contrasting but still positive values and behavioral norms, can dramatize the miscommunication and confusion that arises from lack of awareness of the nonuniversality of our cultural assumptions. Sensitivity is required in order to avoid offending anyone through exaggeration or ridicule.

Exercise 2

An alternative is to use a film developed by Edward Stewart, a pioneer in this area, showing an American businessman arriving in a South or Central Asian country, committing gaffes in his impatient dealings and relationship with a local partner. Identifying their misunderstandings can be fun, and it is useful to track the departures from the recommendations in box 9.2.

This may be followed by a “Cultures in Conflict” game of role-playing two or more different types of culture, based on a set of prepared “culture cards.” These cards specify contrasting behavioral traits relating to personality, privacy, conversation topics, approaches to the opposite sex, behavior at home and outside, body language, etc., so cards can be assigned to small groups in any combination to define contrasting cultures. Participants are unaware of the nature of the traits of the other group(s) with whom they have to communicate, and they will quickly appreciate the profound misunderstandings that can arise.

The “values continuum” (box 9.3) can be used to analyze the cultural learning that took place in this exercise, or it can be used to compare the Partners’ cultures, by placing each culture along a continuum between each set of contrasting values.

Box 9.3 Values Continuum

The Way We Express Ourselves

Nonviolent Communication—Objective and Rationale

Marshal Rosenberg (1983) has developed an interactive model for learning to express and listen effectively, with an emphasis on “empowering evaluations.” The accent here is on providing a more objective, empathic, compassionate way for the parties to understand each other. His exercises encourage us to focus on four sets of issues, which are useful to adapt and role-play:

1. What we observe: Change expressions that confuse observation and evaluation (e.g., “You are too generous”) to examples separating observation and evaluation (e.g., “When you give all your lunch money to others, I think you are too generous”). Also, change failure by generalization (e.g., “Blacks don’t cut their grass or repair their houses”) to more specific instances about person and place (e.g., “I have not seen the black family at 1679 Ross Street cut their lawn or fix the shingles of their roof”). Another example: replace “White people can’t dance,” with “Remember the white couple in the club last night? Both were poor dancers.” Rather than stating, “All men are pigs,” say “The man who lives next door cheats on his wife.”

2. What we feel: Rather than criticizing others or their behavior (“You are wrong”), use the words “I feel” to focus on and share your own experiences (“I feel that I am right”). Rather than expressing only feelings (“I feel uncared for”), add words that tell more about why you think they occur (“When you don’t call for a week I feel hurt, because I interpret it as you not caring for me”). Express how you experience the behavior of others impacting you rather than criticize the behavior itself.

3. What we value: Our feelings result not only from what we observe, but also from how we react to what is important to our cultural and personal values. Different people (and cultures) attach different values to the same acts or expressions. One method of clarifying our values is by adding to an observation a “because I” statement. This method transforms the sentence from “You always yell at me when we disagree” to “It’s hard for me to discuss things when you yell, because I think youre angry at me and don’t want to hear what I have to say.” To “This country is so disorganized,” we should add, “I have a hard time figuring out how things work here because I come from a place where structure and punctuality are important.”

4. What we are requesting: This fourth piece of information elucidates what we are requesting as a positive action. Expressions such as “I want you to respect my right” or “I want some understanding” work better than negatives (“I want you to stop attacking me”) but still are not sufficient. It is more effective to give voice to what you do want if you are specific. It is a good idea to express feelings (“I would like you to be honest with me”) if they are accompanied by an appeal (“I would like you to tell me what I’ve been doing that you don’t like”).

Nonviolent Communication Exercise

Participants are divided into four groups, and for twenty minutes each group should prepare four or more wrong and right statements about the conflict from their personal experiences. Each group can take one of the categories or compete for the best examples for all four. We then read the statements, sharing them with the other groups, who are asked to pick statements that best highlight the different categories. This gives them tools to talk about the conflict without exacerbating relations through misunderstandings.

Hot Buttons Exercise

Susan Potziba has suggested that some phrases or slogans that we inadvertently use have a very negative connotation to the other (e.g., comparing Israeli behavior to “Nazi” behavior; using the term “terrorists” when referring to Palestinians; using “Orientals” for people from East Asia). Usage of such terms immediately blocks the comprehension of the rest of the sentence or discourse, and people are best advised to refrain from using them. The exercise requires the individuals (or team) to write down over ten minutes a list of such explosive expressions when used by the adversary, and perhaps also expressions that are embarrassing when used by their own peers against the other party. The negative catchwords should then be shared in the group, usually discovering some that were not originally considered as such. The Partners should then be invited to make a commitment to avoid hurting each other by pressing such “hot buttons.”

At the end of the day, reflect for a few minutes on the events that have occurred, taking care to defuse whatever tensions remain, to avoid carrying over any hostile attitudes to the following day.

Day 5: Experimenting with Conflict Resolution

An option at this stage is to consider alternative approaches to collaborative problem solving within the broader field of ADR.

Mediation

Objective and Rationale

Mediation training may be introduced, briefly in theory and then in practice through simulations, as a way of demonstrating how integrative problem-solving methods can also be used to help decision makers come to a mutually acceptable agreement. It is best to focus on a scenario that is realistic for the participants, such as one relating to perceived discrimination in the workplace. If possible a mediation practitioner should be brought in to run this session. Sometimes we ask participants to bring examples from their own personal lives, or a couple of participants may be asked to role-play a prepared scenario, giving them ample room for improvisation.

Simple (nonpower) mediation is widely used for resolving single-issue disputes with two or few parties involved. In the context of complex, protracted conflicts or distributional disputes involving larger numbers of groups or stakeholders, or stakeholders without experience in methods of face-to-face negotiations or in working with each other, it will usually be better to use second track collaborative problem-solving methods such as IPSW first, or in parallel with official mediation. Protracted conflicts tend to multiply the issues under dispute, involve disjoined conglomerates on both sides and asymmetries in power relations, with violence resulting in widely shared feelings of victimization on both sides, and failed initiatives. These issues must be addressed before official mediation can be effective.

Exercise

A good scenario for demonstrating mediation concerns a policeman who has been decorated for a recent act of bravery but is going to court to sue a journalist who covered the story. In the process of gathering information, the journalist had learned that the policeman is a homosexual, and this added news value got the story to the front page. The journalist’s defense was that the information was accurate and that his purpose had been noble, namely, to show the entire city that the gay community includes dedicated and heroic policemen, and by so doing to help destroy negative stereotypes. Yet, the life of this particular plaintiff was ruined: his peers no longer liked to work with him; they mocked him, and eventually he had to take a leave of absence and may possibly be obliged to resign. As the mediator goes through the different stages of resolving the conflict , she/he may organize a “fishbowl” with the rest of the participants, encouraging them to provide questions to the parties or suggestions to the mediator.

Other Exercises

The facilitators might also, if time permits, familiarize the participants with other methods used, from elite interaction through first-track diplomacy, down to peer mediation with children. For instance, they might discuss the nature of mediation efforts with Croatian, Bosnian and Serb leaders in Dayton, Ohio (what is the impact of deadlines, or pressure from a power-mediator, on the parties?); or Jimmy Carter’s experience with Egyptian and Israeli representatives at Camp David; or “notebook diplomacy” as used recently in Haiti ( carrying a text via laptop from one side to the other for refinement can be an efficient way of reaching an accord). Other ongoing issues of diplomacy in crisis situations may be discussed.

Introducing the concept of peer mediation with children in schools, with locally trained children as presenters, if available, may have an extraordinary inspirational power. If they can do it, why can’t adults? A good discussion can bring up the notion of adapting this tool to the professional circles of the Partners.

Alternatively, highlighting an elicitive approach, the participants can also search within their own cultures for traditional mechanisms of mediation and problem solving. How have Japanese, Arab or other traditional societies, been effective in regulating levels of conflict using time-honored customs involving the family, the workplace, or elders?

Our Shared Vision: An Exercise in Foreseeing the Future

Objective and Rationale

This exercise is designed to create a positive foundation from which Partners can work toward a desired future, at the same time clarifying the dangers of allowing events to continue as they have in the past. The goal is to generate a creative tension by highlighting a plausible positive scenario for the future and then a plausible negative scenario, as a motivating force toward resolution of immediate disputes.

Exercise

Collective vision building involves asking the Partners to look ahead twenty to thirty years (older Partners prefer to go for a longer period ahead) and to share with the group the best realistic scenarios for their regions or the communities in conflict. Some time should be spent encouraging the participants to be forthcoming and creative, going around the room and eliciting responses from everybody. The atmosphere tends to be rather pastoral and constructive. Clearly, it is easier to find common denominators two decades ahead. Younger participants tend to place themselves and their career objectives within the wider picture, while older groups normally envisage the future that they wish for their children. Realistic optimism is encouraged here, taking into account both constraints and possible future opportunities for peace building, sustained structural reform, social change and economic growth. Facilitators may also have to provide a reality check when participants stray too far into fantasy, as when a woman from one of the poorest countries in the world visualized each of the Partners’ families as having a Mercedes-Benz. As a whole, this exercise tends to generate harmonious and inspired discussion, and the elements of a shared vision (perhaps more than one) should be registered on a flip chart and summarized in a handout for the Partners.

Next comes an anticlimactic moment, as the facilitators ask the participants to switch gears and now think of the worst plausible scenarios of twenty hears hence. There is normally a reluctance to do so. Some assert that things cannot be worse than they are, but others disagree. The atmosphere grows heavier as the Partners are reminded where they are coming from. They speak about higher levels of conflict, economic stagnation, increasing dependence on humanitarian aid, guerrilla warfare, terror, massive loss of life, hunger and mass starvation, chaos, the emergence of new latent ethnic conflict, and other such disheartening scenes. These should also be written on the flip chart and summarized in a handout.

The aim of the exercise is to see if it is possible to integrate or agree on alternate plausible positive scenarios in one “vision statement” reflecting a coherent collective wisdom of the group. We should encourage a working group or individual Partners to take on this challenge as other agenda items allow. This represents a shared aspiration of the group, and care should be taken to capture a statement that resonates as describing something both achievable and worth investing substantial time and energy to realize.

It is easier to agree on more remote common aims projected twenty years ahead than on ideas to be implemented now. For this tougher task we can use the technique of “backcasting,” or backtracking. This brings the thinking about preferred scenarios down to ten years ahead, then five, and serves then as a basis to prepare the agenda for discussions in subsequent days. It is important that the participants themselves table the priority issues to be addressed in the workshop and set a joint agenda.

A common observation has been that Partners come to understand that while “keeping cards close to the chest” may make sense in a zero-sum competition, it may be that both can use the same card to complete their “hands.” In a long-term shared vision we are talking about a team who would like jointly to maximize their future gains (good-news vision) playing together against adverse circumstances (bad-news vision). In the Israeli/Palestinian case, for example, if a cooperative two-state solution is the shared vision, it does make more sense to signal it now, allowing the Palestinian side to perceive the light at the end of the tunnel. At the same time, the demilitarized and peaceful nature envisaged for the state, the legitimization and acceptance of Israel as a partner, allows the two parties to feel more relaxed when discussing the tougher and more intricate steps to be taken toward the common goal.

We have now concluded the “prenegotiation” phase of the IPSW and look forward to the main integrative problem-solving exercise, where the Partners attempt to address creatively the issues in dispute and identify potential solutions. The next section of the workshop reviews alternative methods for reaching consensus, then provides a detailed account of our preferred methodology. Spending adequate time building skills pays off as we get into the workshop’s “real” purpose.

Control�

…………………………….………�

Adaptation�

�

Confrontation�

……………………………….……�

Harmony�

�

Individualism�

……………………………….……�

Interdependence�

�

Conscience as guide�

………………………………….…�

Norms as guide�

�

Resources expanding�

…………………………………….�

Resources limited�

�

Explicitness �

……………………………………�

Subtlety, respect�

�

Change, progress �

……………………………………�

Continuity�

�

Action, doing �

……………………………………�

Experience, being�

�

Future oriented �

……………………………………�

Past oriented�

�

Youth valued �

……………………………………�

Age valued�

�

Problem solving �

……………………………………�

Relationship building�

�

Competition �

……………………………………�

Consensus�

�

Equality �

……………………………………�

Hierarchy�

�

Linear limited time �

……………………………………�

Circular open time�

�

Mechanical world �

……………………………………�

Spiritual/organic�

�

Analysis, reason �

……………………………………�

Synthesis, wisdom�

�

Truth is relative �

……………………………………�

Truth is absolute�

�

Informality �

……………………………………�

Formality�

�

Trust institutions �

……………………………………�

Trust relationships�

�

Constrained contact �

……………………………………�

Intense contact�

�

Constrained expression �

……………………………………�

Expansive expression�

�

Prepare for a negotiation by studying your opponents’ culture and history and not just the issue at hand. Best of all, learn the language. Immerse yourself in the historical relationship between your nations. It may explain more than you expect.

Try to establish a warm, personal relationship with your interlocutors. If possible, get to know them even before negotiations get under way. Cultivating contacts and acquaintances is time well spent.

Do not assume that what you mean by a message—verbal or nonverbal—is what representatives of the other side will understand by it. They will interpret it in the light of their cultural and linguistic background, not yours. By the same token, they may be unaware that things look different from your perspective.

Be alert to indirect formulations and nonverbal gestures. High-context societies put a lot of weight on them. You may have to read between the lines to understand what your partners are hinting at. Assume they will not come right out with it. Be careful in your own words and body language. Your partners may read more into them than you intend. Do not express criticism in public. Do not lose your temper. Anything that leads to loss of face is likely to be counterproductive.

Do not overestimate the power of advocacy. Your interlocutors are unlikely to shift their positions simply in response to good arguments. Pressure may bring short-term results but risks damaging the relationship. Facts and circumstances speak louder than words and are easier to comply with.

Adapt your strategy to your opponent’s cultural needs. On matters of inviolable principle, attempt to accommodate their instinct for prior agreement with your preference for progress on practical matters. Where haggling is called for, leave yourself plenty of leeway. Start high, bargain doggedly and hold back a trump card for the final round.

Flexibility is not a virtue against intransigent opponents. If they are concerned to discover your real bottom line, repeated concessions will confuse rather than clarify the issue. Nor is there merit in innovation for its own sake. Avoid the temptation to compromise with yourself.

Be patient. Haste will almost certainly mean unnecessary concessions. Resist the temptation to labor under artificial time constraints; they will work to your disadvantage. Allow your opponents to decide in their own good time. Their bureaucratic requirements cannot be short-circuited.

Be aware of the emphasis placed by your opponents on matters of status and face. Outward forms and appearances may be as important as substance. For face-conscious negotiators, an agreement must be presentable as an honorable outcome. On the other hand, symbolic gains may compensate them for substantive losses.

Do not be surprised if negotiation continues beyond the apparent conclusion of an agreement. Implementation is unlikely to be automatic and often requires continuing discussion. To assist compliance, it may help to build a system of graduated, performance-based incentives into the original contract.

Notes

1. They are seen by some as mutually exclusive (Bloomfield, 1995: 154), but there have been attempts to construct an integrative model (e.g., Fisher and Keashly, 1991).

2. The negative reaction to track two was exacerbated when this term was used in U.S. anti-Cuban legislation and for covert operations in Chile aimed at undermining Salvador Allende’s regime.

3. Shorter versions of the IPSW are available in Spanish and Russian (see Kaufman, 1998).

4. Michael Banks and Chris Mitchell’s (1997) “Handbook on the Analytical Problem Solving Approach” is useful more as a conceptual and educational tool, focusing less on concrete and experiential aspects. Ambassador John McDonald has also introduced the general approach in several publications, including his “Guidelines for Newcomers to Track Two Diplomacy.”

5. The term is borrowed from the work of my friend Abbe Loewenthal on U.S.-Latin American relations.

6. For instance, the Association of Universities of the South of Ecuador and North of Peru (AUSENP) has been involved in a program on citizen’s diplomacy for local conflict resolution, the awarding of a binational peace prize, joint research projects, etc.

7. After learning from Larry Susskind about his work with government and unofficial representatives in an environmental dispute in Ecuador and “parallel informal negotiations” in climate change negotiations I am becoming convinced that you can have a “track 1½,” mixing participants from both. In our third workshop of Ecuadorian/Peruvian civil society leaders, one participant from each foreign office was invited in a “personal capacity,” and the other participants felt sufficiently comfortable with their presence.

8. We are currently working with upstream and downstream states on the Salween River, with Chinese, Burmese and Thai participants. For a full research strategy on transboundary water disputes, see Kaufman, Oppenheimer, Wolf and Dinar, 1997: 37-48.

9. Over the last few years I have had the pleasure of team-teaching a course on “Conflict Resolution: The Israeli/Palestinian Experiment” with Professor Manual Hassassian, of the University of Bethlehem. This course has become a powerful testing ground both for exploring the issues and motivating students to move away from adversarial attitudes and search for common ground.

10. For an analysis of such an interactive process with Partners and students, see Leslie Gottert, “An Evaluation of the Israeli-Palestinian Building Bridges: A Christian, Jewish and Moslem Trialogue” (CIDCM, University of Maryland, 1995).

11. The Action Evaluation Research Institute has developed a software program (www.aepro.org) that allows organizers of conflict resolution activities to connect interactively with the ARIA group for guidance on the evaluation process. The first analysis is free, then the ARIA group can become involved at different levels of consultancy throughout the project.

12. As Fisher notes, it is important during the introduction section for the participants “to articulate their value base, since cultural differences in assumptions, expectations, and preferences abound in the practice domain of conflict resolution” (Fisher 1994).

13. Dialogue promotes a “mutual confirmation and thereby serves a fundamental need of parties to a conflict to be recognized as individuals with values and unique (and valued) identities.” Montville defines trust as “one party’s willingness to risk increasing his or her vulnerability to another (or others) whose behavior is beyond one’s control; thus, the party is confident that the other will not exploit the party’s vulnerability. Further, the party’s short-term losses that follow if the other does violate the party’s trust usually exceed the short-term benefits of mutually upholding the trust” (Ross and LaCroix, 1996: 315).

14. A Filipino peace activist who had just tested its transcultural applicability in Sri Lanka gave me this idea. I replicated it immediately with a group in the Peruvian military.

15. “Principled negotiation” as a method for parties in conflict has been developed by Roger Fisher and Bill Ury (1991); it provides the parties with ideas how to move from rigid positions into the exploration of underlying interests, looking for integrative options which give better outcomes than unilateral actions or positional bargaining.

16. During World War I the number of civilian casualties was only 5 percent; it went up to 50 percent in World War II and reached 90 percent in the 1990s.

17. The study guide may be used in connection with Sam Keen’s (1986) PBS documentary film Faces of the Enemy, available from Catticus Corporation, 2600 Tenth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710, tel. 415-548-0854.

18. On the image of the enemy, see Jervis, 1976; Volkan, 1988; Spillman and Spillman, 1991; and Moses, 1997.

19. A specially designed class on Dr. Seuss’s Butter Battle Book has been designed by Carrie Shaw for the “Partners in Conflict in the Transcaucasus” program and is available upon request from this author at CIDCM.

20. Lewicki, 1994: 194 provides a list of conciliatory signs.

21. For the Israeli/Palestinian conflict we have used the PBS documentary Arab and Jew, narrated by David Shipler, author of the book of the same name.

22. Well educated Partners, or Partners from high-context cultures, may often not feel comfortable expressing negative stereotypes of the other. We can ask them to recollect the abuses used by the lowest strata in their own society.

23. This set of contrasting values was provided to me by John Davies.

24. For a full description of these techniques, see Rosenberg (1983).

25. Simple mediation requires first building trust among the parties; setting the agenda; asking in-depth questions; reframing the issues; meeting with the parties sepa-rately to explore options in confidence; bringing them together to discuss options that may satisfy the concerns of both parties; confirming agreement in principle; and finally drafting an agreement.

26. A variation on the “single-text procedure” (Susskind and Cruikshank, 1992: 124).

27. “By thinking of the longer term, it is possible to exchange a small loss now for a large gain in the future” (Susskind and Cruikshank, 1992: 88).

28. The option of reversing the order and starting with the “bad news” scenario has the advantage of ending the session with a positive note. But participants may be reluctant to begin by contemplating a future situation worse than the already depressing present.

29. This was the worst scenario of participants from the Caucasus.

,

MULTI-TRACK DIPLOMACY: Transforming violence to peace

The report will be in three parts:

1. A conflict assessment to evaluate the appropriateness or feasibility of a second track initiative (diagnosis);

2. Future scenarios, and specific constructive outcomes that might emerge from workshop(s) promoting a favorable scenario as below (prognosis); and

3. Planning and proposed structure for a second or multi-track initiative bringing together influential (if unofficial) representatives of the parties to promote conflict transformation or building toward a preferred scenario (treatment).

Part 1 should assess the dynamics of the conflict and the feasibility of potential second track intervention (diagnosis):

a. What is the conflict about? Place the conflict issues briefly in historical and regional context, noting significant factors driving the conflict. Note what stage the conflict is in now (unstable/militant politics, low-level/escalating violence, war, talk-fight/stalemate, de-escalating/contained, contested settlement, reconciliation—see Gurr and Davies chapter).

b. Who are the parties involved, including states, minority groups, leaders, organizations, factions, alliances, spoilers, regional or international stakeholders? How are they affected, what are their sources of relative power, and what are their agendas or demands (positions)?

c. What are their perceptions of each other, and what information and communication channels are available between or among them? What cultural (and value) contrasts are involved here? To what extent do the groups need each other to achieve their goals?

d. Identify the primary interests of each party motivating these agendas and perceptions, and the (non-negotiable) human needs underlying them. Note which interests or needs are shared, which may be complementary and which are conflicting.

e. What previous attempts to settle the conflict have been made or are being made, by whom and with what results? Reasons for failure or limited success?

f. Are the groups willing to talk with each other? At what level (officials, informal leaders or grass roots)? What factors are pushing them to talk or inhibiting them? Under what conditions and at what level might they be willing to talk?

Part 2 should focus on future scenarios, specific to the conflict situation you are addressing (prognosis):

g. What are some plausible alternative future scenarios, or common futures, for the conflict as a whole? Note the assumptions or conditionalities on which each overall scenario is built (refer to factors driving the conflict as noted in 1a above), going beyond simple war/no-war dichotomies, and not restricting yourself to single issues in isolation from the big picture.

h. Of these scenarios, which is the preferred overall outcome considering the interests of all parties? In contrast, what is the best overall outcome each of the main parties could achieve without negotiating an agreement with the others (“BATNAs”)? This contrast needs to be cleat to motivate the parties to deal.

Part 3 should outline the proposed second/multi-track initiative, including problem solving workshops, and potential outcomes (treatment):

i. What are your organization’s goals in the initiative, who are your (potential) partner organizations, and what representatives of the parties have expressed interest in your assistance?

j. Which organizations would convene and facilitate the workshops and who would represent the parties in such talks? What issue(s) might they be willing to discuss?

k. What specific steps are proposed to prepare the ground for a suitable interaction among the parties as “partners in conflict” or “partners in peacebuilding”? How will participants be selected and agreed to? What prior caucusing with each party may be needed to ensure agreement on an agenda and ground rules?

l. What steps for trust building and skill building are proposed for the participants in the first workshop before focusing on their own conflict?

m. What steps are proposed for facilitating consensus building in the first workshop by the participants toward better understanding and cooperation in seeking common ground?

n. Give examples of specific integrative options for conflict transformation or peacebuilding (sustainable development) that might emerge from the proposed second track initiative, that would promote the realization of the preferred overall outcome. Explain how they address key interests/needs of the main parties, who might implement them, and whether each one represents a short-term response (e.g., threat containment, confidence building), medium-term strategy (e.g., structure for a peace process) or long-term objective (e.g., appropriate new institutions of inclusive democratic governance, power sharing, autonomy).

o. How is it proposed to facilitate action planning, re-entry, implementation and longer-term constructive engagement by participants and other actors in building on the initial workshop?

p. Give examples of expected outcomes, including impact both on participants and on their communities, that could provide criteria for evaluating the success of the initiative. For example, how will the process link into or promote an official peace process or otherwise facilitate constructive official engagement and/or broaden grassroots support for peacebuilding?

q. How will the initiative be evaluated throughout? Include output, impact and outcome assessment.

r. What specific actions or support are now requested from the organization(s) to whom this paper or brief is addressed, in order to help make this initiative happen? (No budget required at this stage.)

,

MULTI-TRACK DIPLOMACY: Transforming violence to peace

The report will be in three parts:

1. A conflict assessment to evaluate the appropriateness or feasibility of a second track initiative (diagnosis);

2. Future scenarios, and specific constructive outcomes that might emerge from workshop(s) promoting a favorable scenario as below (prognosis); and

3. Planning and proposed structure for a second or multi-track initiative bringing together influential (if unofficial) representatives of the parties to promote conflict transformation or building toward a preferred scenario (treatment).

Part 1 should assess the dynamics of the conflict and the feasibility of potential second track intervention (diagnosis):

a. What is the conflict about? Place the conflict issues briefly in historical and regional context, noting significant factors driving the conflict. Note what stage the conflict is in now (unstable/militant politics, low-level/escalating violence, war, talk-fight/stalemate, de-escalating/contained, contested settlement, reconciliation—see Gurr and Davies chapter).

b. Who are the parties involved, including states, minority groups, leaders, organizations, factions, alliances, spoilers, regional or international stakeholders? How are they affected, what are their sources of relative power, and what are their agendas or demands (positions)?

c. What are their perceptions of each other, and what information and communication channels are available between or among them? What cultural (and value) contrasts are involved here? To what extent do the groups need each other to achieve their goals?

d. Identify the primary interests of each party motivating these agendas and perceptions, and the (non-negotiable) human needs underlying them. Note which interests or needs are shared, which may be complementary and which are conflicting.

e. What previous attempts to settle the conflict have been made or are being made, by whom and with what results? Reasons for failure or limited success?

f. Are the groups willing to talk with each other? At what level (officials, informal leaders or grass roots)? What factors are pushing them to talk or inhibiting them? Under what conditions and at what level might they be willing to talk?

Part 2 should focus on future scenarios, specific to the conflict situation you are addressing (prognosis):

g. What are some plausible alternative future scenarios, or common futures, for the conflict as a whole? Note the assumptions or conditionalities on which each overall scenario is built (refer to factors driving the conflict as noted in 1a above), going beyond simple war/no-war dichotomies, and not restricting yourself to single issues in isolation from the big picture.

h. Of these scenarios, which is the preferred overall outcome considering the interests of all parties? In contrast, what is the best overall outcome each of the main parties could achieve without negotiating an agreement with the others (“BATNAs”)? This contrast needs to be cleat to motivate the parties to deal.

Part 3 should outline the proposed second/multi-track initiative, including problem solving workshops, and potential outcomes (treatment):

i. What are your organization’s goals in the initiative, who are your (potential) partner organizations, and what representatives of the parties have expressed interest in your assistance?

j. Which organizations would convene and facilitate the workshops and who would represent the parties in such talks? What issue(s) might they be willing to discuss?

k. What specific steps are proposed to prepare the ground for a suitable interaction among the parties as “partners in conflict” or “partners in peacebuilding”? How will participants be selected and agreed to? What prior caucusing with each party may be needed to ensure agreement on an agenda and ground rules?

l. What steps for trust building and skill building are proposed for the participants in the first workshop before focusing on their own conflict?

m. What steps are proposed for facilitating consensus building in the first workshop by the participants toward better understanding and cooperation in seeking common ground?

n. Give examples of specific integrative options for conflict transformation or peacebuilding (sustainable development) that might emerge from the proposed second track initiative, that would promote the realization of the preferred overall outcome. Explain how they address key interests/needs of the main parties, who might implement them, and whether each one represents a short-term response (e.g., threat containment, confidence building), medium-term strategy (e.g., structure for a peace process) or long-term objective (e.g., appropriate new institutions of inclusive democratic governance, power sharing, autonomy).

o. How is it proposed to facilitate action planning, re-entry, implementation and longer-term constructive engagement by participants and other actors in building on the initial workshop?

p. Give examples of expected outcomes, including impact both on participants and on their communities, that could provide criteria for evaluating the success of the initiative. For example, how will the process link into or promote an official peace process or otherwise facilitate constructive official engagement and/or broaden grassroots support for peacebuilding?

q. How will the initiative be evaluated throughout? Include output, impact and outcome assessment.

r. What specific actions or support are now requested from the organization(s) to whom this paper or brief is addressed, in order to help make this initiative happen? (No budget required at this stage.)