Interactive Conflict Resolution, Real Life, and a Weak Link

[DanielShvartsman]

Hello everybody,

I am responding to the ICR thread, but I thought to put it here because I will share something I have seen.

For ICR in general, Zoe and Sara both make good points about how isolated we can be in Israel from the "other" and from the conflict. I found it frustrating to notice how normal life was in Tel Aviv during last winter's war with Hamas in Gaza. I am not sure what should have been happening, but it felt very strange to me.

Hany also mentions that ICR users "must explore ways to transfer workshop gains to official decision-making processes." So ICR workshops should lead to more peace. But they should also connect to more people in their own communities to make a change. But how will this work?

For example, I worked at a high school on a Model United Nations conference. Students of all backgrounds from Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Turkey represented nations from across the world and discussed problems and challenges in International Relations.

We had one special committee set aside for students to represent themselves. There, 29 students of both Jewish and Arabic backgrounds discussed the conflict between Israel and the Arab world, how they viewed each other, and the history of the conflict. They wrote a resolution about a part of the problem - the media - and that was that.

What they are trying to do differently this year is to spread the results of the conference. The students plan on traveling to other schools around the country to share their message about how the media could do a better job showing the two different sides to the conflict (Arabs and Jews). The students will also share their experience with each other, about how they became friends and argued and worked together and everything.

I am sure that the students who participated in the workshop will always remember their time with good memories, and with the Internet and Facebook and other programs, they will all continue to talk to one another. I am sure they will also be good diplomats (or e-diplomats) in their own communities. Still, I wonder if this small change with 29 people will lead to the kind of change Israel, the Palestinians, and the world has been waiting for. I do not want to be too cynical, but it is easy to be skeptical.

This MUN workshop is not exactly an ICR workshop, but more of a track 3 program among students. Track 3 involves grassroots, everyday citizens. I think they are a very important part in building intractable peace, as somebody called it. I think Israel needs more of it, and I would guess Rwanda needs to grow there as well.

What I want to know is how we can build on these workshops, whether ICR or Track 3. Do you think sharing it with other schools is really effective? Are there other ways to build on these workshops to get them to reach many people?

I would love to hear thoughts. I think new ideas in this area are crucial to fixing the weak link in ICR and other Track 3 processes.

Enjoy your day,
Daniel

[EvanKaufman]

Hey Daniel, thank you for your post.

I also remember doing Model UN in college with other students in which we each represented a nation, although we did not have a special committee of students representing themselves. I think that the special committee is an important one because we need more people representing themselves and not necessarily representing views of a particular identity or ideology.

I do believe that ICR is a useful tool even if it only affects 29 people. Each person who is given the ability to challenge old and bankrupt ideas about others that have been a source for conflict is a positive change. Additionally, each person will now be better able to communicate what they have learned with others around them. So starting from 29 or even one can be a synergy for a much greater change. Although on this smaller level, I agree with you that the impact seems negligible compared to the greater goals of solving the conflict and creating "intractable peace." It may be important for these smaller groups, to start clubs or organizations in which to attract more people and then can lobby government, if possible, to implement more policies of peace and less policies of war.

In my opinion, peace may be found in a variety of ways. Of course in a conflict, one side may acquiesce or submit to the demands of a greater force, and peace can be had. One party may win a battle or a war and impose on the other, and thus the conflict will end and a peace may ensue. There is also the case of "negative" or "cold" peace in which seems to be the case today in Israel in which peace is a product of the absence of violence for the time being. We have seen many forms of these types of peace over the history of humankind but there is another kind of peace which is rare but highly sought after. This peace consists of actual transformation. A transformation where ideas and beliefs held about the other and oneself are challenged and layed to rest. This is what I believe Kriesberg is referring to when he speaks about a change in the ideas, attitudes and grievances held by the sides in a conflict. And this seems to be precisely what ICR is directed towards.

Over history we have seen many conflicts end with death, bloodshed, and destruction. Or, after much destruction, a peace treaty or cease fire is signed because the atrocities have become too great and the paths previously taken are no longer reliable, hence the parties may become ripe for agreement. This agreement does not truly end the conflict unless a transformation of ideas and beliefs can accompany the agreement. Although any kind of peace is preferred to violent conflict; if we have intractable peace in mind, we must be willing to undergo the process of transformation, otherwise violent conflict will continue to plague the future of mankind.

ICR is a useful tool that can be applied to all levels (Track 1,2, and 3) in which the negative perceptions one side may have toward another can be confronted and dealt with. Of course I would like to see these tools being applied to large groups of people and entire communities at a time, but I am also encouraged to see its success on just one person. Imagine the weight one carries with him if constantly consumed by thoughts of anger and hatred towards a person or people. The energy used to prop up these thoughts and ideas is effectively wasted and most likely prevents a person from engaging in a healthy lifestyle. Not to mention the violence or institutions that may be manifested from these thoughts. For an individual, it is a heavy and cumbersome burden to carry around this negative energy all the time. When and if ICR is effective in breaking this cycle of thoughts in one individual and in turn provides them with a little more peace then burden, the effort is well worth it. In this way, ICR can help liberate individuals from destructive thought patterns. In my view, peace of mind may be the highest goal, and undoubtedly a peace of mind of all sides to a conflict will result in an intractable peace.

Look forward to any responses, insights, or comments.

All the best,
Evan

[omristern]

I have an idea



"Emoticons" (Emotion + Icon) - these are tools by which we evoke emotion over the internet. They are sent from one person to another during a virtual conversation. They are also a set of rules that govern such emotional exchanges. There are some emotions that can be expressed, others that cannot. I think they are a great medium for Interactive Conflict Resolution.

As mentioned in previous posts:

"Interactive conflict resolution (ICR) involves problem-solving discussions between unofficial representatives of groups or states engaged in violent protracted conflict.

We can describe it as a social-psychological approach to conflict resolution. ICR emphasizes the need for direct communication between opposing parties, and for a skilled intermediary to facilitate that communication.

John Burton, one of the pioneers of ICR emphasizes the role of a third party in creating a non-threatening atmosphere in which parties can realize and correct misperceptions of the other."

What if there was a social networking forum dedicated to ICR? The difference however, would be that the means of communication be governed wholely by emoticons. Imagine a site for Israelis and Palestinians, or for Rwandans, where an individual member would have "friends," could post pictures and articles, as well as join groups and causes. Individuals could respond to one anothers posts by emoticons only, that way bringing across the truly humane sensation, rather than burrying the meaning in text, opinions and rhetoric. Not to say that rhetoric is bad, but that it would diminish the simplicity and power such an engagement. Emoticons offer a universal language that is simple, understandable and impactful.

One might challenge this idea and say: Where is the DIRECT discussions and what about PROBLEM SOLVING? Agreed, this is not such a forum, but before direct discussion and problem solving can occur in a workshop, there must be established a "non-threatening" atmosphere. This is what I'm proposing. Set the stage for constructive dialogue beforehand, and allow for a follow up afterward. If there is one thing that conflict resolution in the middle east has taught us is that TRUST is a ubiquitious element that is fundamentally lacking in the process. A social network governed by emoticons could breach the vacuum of trust. By the time the conflict community meets for a workshop, they will already have gotten to know eachother and familiarized themselves with faces, pictures, stories, and most importantly, emotions. Recall how meaningful it was to see the Israeli bloggers on the YouTube video.

This is a tool that might solve what Daniel mentioned as the problem of too little effect with too little people. it is a tool to change the culture of mistrust, and to make our emotional engagement liberal and non-threatening.

I would love to hear your thoughts on the development of this idea...

[ArianaS]

Simple and true! Often threaded discussions are bombarded with shouts of rhetoric and perhaps wrongly perceived responses-causing a mess of online 'shouting' (for an example look at a thread of comments on a news article).
Emoticons, or even just a one word description of emotion would diminish the chance of belittling a person's thoughts and instead raise a true response- how did it make one feel. Does this communication governed wholely by emoticons give enough 'interaction'- I think this minimal approach may be a good beginning to a test the group- so see what discussions, pictures, songs, and so on spark what emotions.
Once everyone has a feel for each other- what is "hot-button" and what is comfortable, then a more fruitful and verbal interaction may take place- having the foundation already set!
This form of ICR is- simplistic, and perhaps trust-'testing'!
I give your post a and one word: "online workable!" (ok, two words )

[zoe]

Hi All!

I just returned from a conference on open-source peacemaking. The premise of the conference (www.spiritinitiative.org) is to empower and engage people to solve problems that have burdened the international community. The method of open-source peacemaking is through 'crowdsourcing', which is a means of collecting ideas and expertise from all fields and levels to bring a new life to peacemaking and problem solving. The conference was a really great way to meet other people who share similar interests and come from many different backgrounds. One of the most interesting things that I walked away from the conference with was how many different actionable ideas can be developed from many disciplines and fields.

Along with some of my colleagues, I was also a participant in Model UN. I attended National MUN conferences both in high school and in college. I saw how in conference, delegates were able to debate and form coalitions and pass resolutions that aimed at solving complex problems that demand a great deal of resources.

I think these two experiences have taught me that the ideas are there, the willingness is there too. I don't think it's a lack of ability either, but I also believe that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think that translating ideas into action requires a great amount of vigilance and all efforts must work within the existing system. When I listen to speeches by policy-makers, I often feel frustrated. It seems as if they are speaking the same language as us, the crowd. It seems that they desire to enact the changes that we all want to see. I also see how this is stifled in practice, be it by red tape or lack of resources or even a host of other reasons. I think that ICR is one tool that we can use in peacemaking. I don't think that it is the only answer but I think, as with all proposed methods, it must be tried and tested before it can be accepted, rejected, or amended. So...let's keep working towards the peace we all want!

I try to make use of emoticons as much as possible, especially this one -

Zoe