A Call to the Conflict Resolution Community

---

by Bridget Moix September 2002

-Print -Email -Comment -Subscribe  (free)

This past August I attended for the first time the annual conference of the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR), a professional organization formed by the merger of the Academy of Family Mediators (AFM), the Conflict Resolution in Education Network (CRENet), and the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution (SPIDR). I knew little about the organization at the time and was curious and excited to be helping lead a workshop on the responses of Quaker and Mennonite groups to the tragedy of 9/11 and the Bush administration's continuing "war on terror".

Coming from the peace church tradition with a background in both peace advocacy and international conflict resolution, I arrived at the conference with a certain set of assumptions about who would make up the membership of ACR and what the focus of discussion in the conference would be. I imagined a broad, diverse network of professionals working across the spectrum of conflict resolution, from family and community mediation to state and federal dispute resolution to international conflict prevention and peacemaking. I assumed that such a group of experts and practitioners concerned with promoting alternative, nonviolent means for managing and transforming conflict at all levels would be as agitated as I was - and continue to be - with the direction of U.S. policy and the impending crisis of a possible pre-emptive war by the Bush administration against Iraq.

As I perused the conference schedule, though, I discovered that while ACR does indeed bring together an impressive array of scholars and practitioners in the conflict resolution field, there was not the focus on 9/11, the continuing war on terror, and the approaching attacks against Iraq that I had expected. Indeed, of the more than 220 scheduled workshops and discussions, I found only 7 or 8 on themes directly related to what I see as the most urgent issues facing the conflict resolution community in the U.S. Of those, there were only four which I would classify as directly related to the policies of the U.S.: one on the current state and future of Afghanistan, one which raised issues of possible future attacks and crisis negotiation but seemed to avoid approaching any sensitive political issues; and only two which openly suggested that the conflict resolution community has a voice in the policy debate on these issues (and one of those was the workshop, organized by the Conflict Resolution Center International, that I'd come to help lead). In a somewhat related vein but not overtly connected to 9/11 and the war on terror were two workshops on improving the conflict resolution capacity in the public policy arena, and one two-part session on advocacy and conflict resolution.

Where's the heat?

Admittedly, the conflict resolution field includes an extremely broad range of topics, and there are many important issues to be covered in such a conference - family mediation, ADR in the courts, environmental conflict management, training and research developments in the field, international peace processes, and on and on. Yet, given the heated debate alive in the media and the policy arena at the time of the conference regarding a possible preemptive attack against Iraq, the desperate need for voices articulating alternative means for responding to the conflicts our country and world faces, and the incredible wealth of knowledge and expertise gathered at the conference, I was disappointed at the business-as-usual attitude which I felt at the gathering.

Here were hundreds of individuals who worked daily to understand, analyze, interrupt, and reverse cycles of conflict and violence, gathered in one place at one critical time, with, it seemed, hardly anything to say collectively regarding the violence unraveling around them - through the administration's demonizing of enemies abroad, the targeting of certain communities and heightened restrictions on civil liberties at home, the dissolving of international law and renewed commitment to nuclear proliferation, and the rewriting of geopolitics around a new "us vs. them" attitude that only promises greater global destabilization and furthers the cycle of violence. I cannot help but ask, "Where is the voice of the conflict resolution community in this war?"

CR is Always Political

In fact, I believe the broad range of individuals gathered at the ACR conference are deeply concerned with the direction our government's policies are headed. Yet, as a field, we seem to shy away from becoming "too political," as if conflict resolution work could in fact remain neutral. Yet, I cannot think of a more political field of work to be in. As I understand it, conflict resolution is about human relations, which is inevitably about conflict, which is almost always political! A profession that deals with people in conflict, striving collaboratively to find alternative ways for managing problems that can transform relations, resolve disputes, and move toward justice and reconciliation, cannot avoid politics. Perhaps it is time we as practitioners and scholars begin thinking of the field as indisputably political. Instead of avoiding the political arena, we could provide a powerful voice for peaceful resolution of conflict at all levels of policymaking.

Workshops

I was intrigued by the workshop presented on advocacy and conflict resolution, working with practitioners to improve their skills at being advocates for clients in disputes. Moving between the worlds of advocacy and conflict resolution in my own work over the years, I've discovered a certain assumption that advocacy is not something conflict resolvers do. I've never quite understood the assumption, as conflict resolution, to me, has always been about advocacy - advocating for alternative processes for dealing with conflict without resorting to violence and in ways which can meet the needs of all and, possibly, transform relationships. In this way, the conflict resolution field, as an entity, is always involved in advocacy. We are not neutral when it comes to matters of violence and war. We believe and, through study and practice, have witnessed the possibility and power of nonviolent prevention, management, and transformation of conflict. These at least are my assumptions about the biases of the field.

Toward the end of the ACR conference, I was happy to find a group of ACR members organizing a petition supporting "the use of cooperative methods of resolving disputes that lead to better, longer lasting solutions and stronger relationships….[urging] the adoption of peaceful methods for resolving all disputes between the governments of the United States and Iraq." This was an important step toward finding a collective voice for the conflict resolution community amid the clamor of war. Similarly, the final speakers of the conference, outgoing and incoming presidents of ACR, made important points linking the field of conflict resolution practitioners with the world of politics and advocacy. "We need to be advocates, we should never be just neutrals about what we believe in," urged Arnie Shienvold in his final speech as ACR president, and the new president, Nancy Peace noted the role of the conflict resolution field in providing "a strong voice in affecting public policy issues that impact us."

Reaching consensus among such a diverse group as ACR on what the organization could and should say with regard to a pending pre-emptive war against Iraq, a spiraling global war on terror, and the fretting away of civil liberties and international law will not be an easy task. The debate itself will no doubt raise difficult questions for many and challenge the group as a whole. Yet, if ever there was a time to take up that challenge it is now. For the need for voices which can articulate, with experience and professional knowledge, the dangers of spiraling cycles of violence, of an "us vs. them" approach to the world, of seeking security for oneself through war against another, has never been greater. More than anything, policymakers in the U.S. and internationally need to be convinced that effective alternatives for dealing with entrenched and spiraling conflict do exist, that face-saving ways out of the corners we find ourselves in can be found, that our own security is linked inextricably to the security of our global neighbors and even our so-called global enemies. The conflict resolution field has the experience, the knowledge, and the compassion that is critically needed in the current political debate. If only it will raise its voice.

Biography

---

Bridget Moix works with the Friends Committee on National Legislation in Washington, DC, and teaches a course on international conflict resolution and religion at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.

Email Author
Additional articles by Bridget Moix

Comments

Tweet

---

Free subscription to comments on this article

Add Brief Comment

David  Hart,   Washington DC	12/10/02
ACR Statement
Please note: ACR's Board of Directors has now issued a statement relevant to this discussion. ---------------------------- The Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR) is a membership association committed to educational activities that promote peaceful, effective conflict resolution, both nationally and internationally. Within the context of our mission, the Board of ACR believes that we need to engage in an educational dialogue about the issues raised by the escalating tensions and violence in our world. ACR is committed to constructive approaches to the resolution of conflict, whether interpersonal, communal, organizational, national or international. We believe that constructive approaches to conflict resolution do not require ignoring or sacrificing key interests or concerns of participants. ACR believes that it is important to promote a dialogue about how to deal with the potential threat of the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, the United States, and elsewhere. We think this dialogue should take into account what we have learned about dealing with serious conflict. For example, as we consider the impending crisis concerning Iraq and the U.S., the following key lessons are relevant and are offered as discussion points: * Sensitivity to Alternative Views. Conflict surrounding the development of WMD has to be understood from the viewpoints of the many different stakeholders involved. A thorough analysis of the interests of all parties to this conflict is needed. To consider these interests is not a sign of weakness, but of strength and confidence that good solutions to difficult problems can be found. * Polarization. Presenting an issue in polarized terms does not promote constructive approaches to the resolution of conflict: there are alternatives other than doing nothing or taking violent action. When we limit the options under consideration in this way, we make it harder to achieve effective, long-term solutions to the problem. * Long-term Implications. In serious conflicts, good decisions are seldom made when people act precipitously and without adequate attention to long-term implications. Slowing a process down is often the most effective way of ensuring that a broader and wiser approach can be taken. For example, in the case of Iraq, providing enough time to allow inspections to have a significant impact and building a broad coalition to address concerns about WMD and the relationship among the parties would probably produce a less volatile long-term outcome. * Use of Positive Incentives. Positive inducements are often effective in reducing the rapid escalation of conflict. Threats of dire consequences typically force conflictants to "feel backed into a corner." Many such positive inducements can be offered in such a way that they are neither a bribe nor a reward for bad behavior, but a genuine effort to address problems that are keeping a party isolated and dangerous. * Third Party Involvement. Third parties can often help to bridge gaps where impossible chasms seem to exist. This would require the identification of third parties who can help broker solutions to this crisis that might address concerns about WMD without resorting to war. * Consequences. Escalating a conflict usually entails unforeseen and dangerous consequences. For example, we believe an escalation of conflict with Iraq to the level of a violent preemptive intervention could lead to an escalation of terrorism. The potential to build a strong international coalition to look at the underlying causes of terrorism and to decrease the incentives for its use could be set back significantly by a war. In long-term and entrenched disputes, understanding the history and context of the conflict is essential. At this time, ACR believes it is important to understand the history of violence in Iraq and the relationship between Iraq and the United States. We do not advocate naïve acceptance of dubious promises or guarantees. We do believe that the uncontrolled and poorly monitored development of WMD is a problem that extends far beyond the current crisis. We believe the U.S. and its allies need to expand the options that are being considered to take into account the approaches we have discussed. Based on the lessons that conflict resolution professionals have learned in dealing with serious conflict over many years, ACR urges de-escalation. This would allow for the pursuit of alternative approaches and the assessment of long-term interests of all involved. Efforts to deal with the problem of WMD should be made through the emerging but still fragile coalition of the world community. We urge ACR members to engage in a dialogue around these issues. Also, we urge ACR members to extend that dialogue within their communities with the goal of educating more people about options that increase the possibility of peaceful settlements to apparently intractable conflicts. We believe the principles we have learned from our years of work as conflict resolvers can be productively applied to the most serious conflicts of our day, whether these involve weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, the conflict in the Middle East or in other regions where issues of mass violence are present. ------------------------------------------------------------ We invite your responses to this statement at: http://www.acresolution.org     Association for Conflict Resolution address 1527 New Hampshire Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 phone 202.667.9700 fax 202.265.1968 email acr@acresolution.org web www.acresolution.org copyright 2002 ACR Add New Comment

Paul  Wahrhaftig,   Pittsburgh PA	paul@conflictres.org      11/15/02
Negotiating with the "irrational"
In my limited research into negotiating with "irrational" parties, I find that often irrationality is in the eyes of the beholder. Once you understand where the party is coming from the irrational may become rational. One could wonder about the rationality of a party who hinges everything on the other party proving a negative, and will not state any concrete terms for ending the conflict. But inspite of this seemingly crazyness - we need to seek out, difficult as it may seem, the reality and rationality seen from George W's perspective and involve him in negotiations. Add New Comment

Lee Hopkins,   Cambridge MA	10/28/02
Right on
Amen to your comments. There is nothing neutral about being a mediator, though we try and hide behind such a facade. Let's dialogue more about this! Add New Comment

Dan ,   Newark DE	10/24/02
How?
Professionals in alternative dispute resolution are undoubtedly important and useful to society, but how could ADR REALISTICALLY help de-escalate our situation with an entirely irrational nation such as Iraq? Add New Comment

Hani Naser,   Claremont CA	HaniNaser@yahoo.com      10/17/02
Bravo!!! Thank you Bridget. Add New Comment

See All 8 Comments

The views expressed by authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc., Mediate.com or of reviewing editors.