The delight of building peace?

Notes for Unit 1: Peace Psychology

Like fishing, it is the pursuit of what is elusive, Submitted By: Sanah Ohsan (681)
but attainable, BA (Hons) Applied Psychology
a perpetual series of occasions for hope.
—Adapted from John Buchan

Meaning of Peace
Peace is defined as a two-dimensional construct with both objective and subjective measures that must
be studied within specific micro to macro contexts.

Exploring a definition of peace might begin by outlining how popular understandings of peace differ
across languages and cultures. Virtually all Western language definitions emphasize the absence of war
and other forms of overt violence as a key component of peace. For example, the Oxford English
Dictionary gives its first definition of the word peace as “freedom from, or cessation of, war or hostilities;
that condition of a nation or community in which it is not at war with another” (1989). All the definitions
that follow in the Oxford English Dictionary include the notion of “freedom from” civil commotion,
individual perturbation, dissention between individuals, mental or spiritual disturbance, noise, movement,
or activity.

The English word peace derives from the Latin word pax, which has a somewhat more legalistic meaning.
The Oxford Latin Dictionary gives the first definition of pax as “a pact (to end or avert hostilities),
settlement, peace” (1977, p. 1314). It goes on to point out that it “applies to relations between individuals”
(1977, p. 1314). Other definitions parallel the English definitions. The emphasis, however, is on peace
flowing from a civil or divine source that keeps the peace through contractual relations. Peace is seen as
a relationship among people based on a common agreement or understanding.

The concept of peace takes on additional nuances when drawn from non-Western languages and cultures.
For example, the Hebrew and Arabic words for peace, shalom and salaam, respectively, derive from the
root shalev, meaning “whole” or “undivided.” This is also the root for the word Islam. Hindi and Sanskrit
have several words for peace. Avirodha stems from the word virodha, which means “war,” and is
consistent with Western definitions of peace as the absence of war. However, other Sanskrit words for
peace, shanti and chaina, reflect, respectively, a spiritual or inner peace and a mental peace or calmness.
In Chinese, peace is written as a combination of two characters, one meaning harmony and the other
meaning equality or balance. Taken together, the symbols mean harmony in balance.

In Chinese there is no word for peace as the absence of war. The Japanese term for peace, linguistically
derived from Chinese but reflecting a distinct culture, is also a combination of two characters indicating
harmony, simplicity, and quietness.

1
Whereas most Western definitions of peace tend to emphasize the absence of violence, Eastern definitions
tend to be positive in the sense that peace means the presence of certain characteristics rather than the
absence of negative characteristics. A truly global understanding of peace should include both the absence
of factors such as violence and the presence of factors such as balance, harmony, and unbrokenness.

It is important to distinguish, however, between cultures “of” peace and cultures “at” peace. Certainly, it
is possible for a culture of peace to be, sometimes, at war—such as occupied Denmark during World War
II. Likewise, a warlike culture can certainly have times when it is at peace. A society’s adherence to peace
as a cultural value and behavioral norm is different from whether it, at a given point in time, exhibits a
peaceful condition. This difference can be expressed as peace as a “trait” as opposed to peace as a “state.”
Peace, is defined as , a state of peace. A peaceful culture, on the other hand, is one where peace is a cultural
trait. Without a clear definition of state peace, a conceptually clear discussion of peaceful cultures is
severely handicapped.

Based on an overview of the peace literature, a consideration of the definitions of peace in various
languages and subsequent collegial discussion, I propose the following definition of peace:
“Peace is a condition in which individuals, families, groups, communities, and/or nations experience low
levels of violence and engage in mutually harmonious relationships. “From this definition, the following
points can be made:

– Peace Is a Condition or State

The definition indicates that peace is a condition, which, therefore, exhibits characteristics that can be
measured by what are traditionally referred to as “objective” measures: statistics, including archival data,
that measure levels of violence and incidents of mutually harmonious relationships.

The view of peace as a state does not necessarily imply that it is a static concept. In a simple sense, peace
as a “process” simply acknowledges that states can evolve over time. Peace can describe the state of a
system that can fluctuate across various levels of peacefulness. Measures can be taken, therefore, at
various points in time to show changes over time.

In a deeper sense, peace as a process might be interpreted as implying that peace is the very process of
working toward peace. Indeed, the September 2001 Clark University Conference proposed that peace be
defined as “the settlement of conflict by means that do not involve the use of physical violence.” I would
caution, however, that a distinction must be made between peace as a process and the precursors of peace.
Although peaceful cultures may indeed settle conflicts nonviolently, the characteristics of a peaceful
condition should not be confused with the preconditions or methods that lead to peace. In measurement
terminology, the task is to distinguish between indicators of peace and the independent variables that lead
to peace.

2
– Peace Is Experienced
The definition indicates that peace is experienced by people and can therefore be measured by subjective
evaluations. Though peace can be partially measured by objective measures, comprehensive measures of
peace should also include subjective indicators that reflect people’s personal evaluations and experience
of peace.
Subjective measures present a greater challenge to data gathering and scale development. They require
the development of attitudinal surveys designed for this purpose with individuals as the unit of
measurement. Though theoretically possible, it may be difficult to find archival data or existing studies
that provide subjective data in the appropriate form.

– Peace Exists Within Specific Contexts

The definition indicates that peace is a condition that is experienced by individuals, families, groups,
communities, and nations. It is, in other words, experienced within any of several contexts or, as Groff
(2001b) called them, “multiple system levels” based on Galtung’s (1969) concept of “levels of actors”
within a social system. These contexts form a spectrum ranging from micro to macro. Although this
spectrum can be segmented in a variety of ways, the various typologies of peace in the literature suggest
the contexts shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 shows the spectrum from micro to macro and suggests seven divisions from “personal” to
“ecological.” The footnote explains the anomaly of “Gaia” peace, which, although indicated in the
literature, is problematic and perhaps should not be included. If Gaia peace is not included, the remaining
spectrum of personal to international covers virtually all extant studies of peace. In, whatever way the
contexts of peace are categorized, they dramatize the interconnectedness of peace from micro to macro.
Comprehensive or “global” measures of peace should include the full spectrum. As a practical matter,
however, any single research study would probably have a more limited scope, focusing on one or a few
contexts. Researchers should define the scope of any particular study by making explicit which context or
contexts are its focus.

3
– Peace Has Two Dimensions
The definition of peace indicates two dimensions. The first dimension is a “violence” dimension,
consistent with the notion of “negative peace” in the literature (see, e.g., Galtung, 1969; Groff, 2001b).
The violence dimension is measured along a continuum from low to high levels of violence, with lower
levels of violence reflecting higher levels of peace.

Although this begs the question of how to define violence, it is not a problem for the definition of peace
proposed here: In whatever way violence is defined, peace is defined as low levels of it. No one would
disagree that war and killing are examples of violence. The debate is over where to draw the line between
violence and other forms of behavior. For example, is telling a child “no” an example of violence? Is
disciplining a child violence? How about physical discipline? No one would disagree that wantonly
beating or killing a child is violence. But where along this spectrum of behaviors does one cross over into
violence? The answer to this question influences the choice of possible indicators of violence.
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines violence as the intentional use of physical force or power,
threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results
in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or
deprivation. (Krug et al., 2002)

By itself, however, the violence dimension does not provide an adequate definition of peace. The second
dimension of peace indicated by our definition is a “harmony” dimension, which refers to the degree that
individuals, families, groups, communities, or nations are engaged in mutually harmonious relationships.
This implies that those in a peaceful relationship exhibit positive relationships. It is consistent with the
notion of “positive peace” in the literature. It is measured along a spectrum from lesser to greater
engagement in harmonious relationships. Galtung (1969) identified a positive dimension of peace with
“cooperation,” “integration,” and “social justice,” with higher levels of these factors indicating higher
levels of peace.

It can be inferred that well-balanced measures of peace must include indicators of both violence and
harmonious relationships. Both dimensions are essential components of peace. The definition also implies
that peacemaking efforts and programs must strive in two directions: the
reduction of violence and the building of harmonious relationships.

Operationalizing the concept of Peace

Summarizing the previous discussion, a comprehensive measure of peace should include objective and
subjective measures of the violence and harmony dimensions within one or more contexts. The main
considerations in measuring and explaining peace are, therefore
1. Peace is measured within one or more specific contexts, micro to macro.
2. Peace consists of two continuous dimensions: Violence and Harmony.
3. These dimensions are measured both objectively and subjectively.

4
Expressing these propositions as a mathematical model

1. Peace is measured within specific contexts, micro to macro. Comprehensive

or all-pervasive Peace (Π) is a function of all contexts from micro to
macro.
Π = f(P1, …, Pc)
where c is the total number of contexts.

2. Within a given context, c, Peace is a function of two dimensions: Violence and Harmony.

Pc = f(–V, H)

3. These dimensions are measured both objectively and subjectively.

V = f(VO,VS)
H = f(HO,HS)

Combining these functions (considering only one context, c) yields the following measurement model:
Pc = f(–f[VO,VS], f[HO,HS])

Psychology of Peace
Although peace psychology has deep roots in philosophy, peace psychology did not take shape as a
coherent area of interest until the second half of the twentieth century. Since then, the growth has been
remarkable. In Peace Psychology: A Comprehensive Introduction, Blumberg (2007) examined trends in
citations to peace psychology using the PsycINFO database and found a large, significant increase in
citations between the 1970s and 1980s, and again after the 1990s. These increases were in absolute terms
as well as in proportion to the growing number of records. In order to provide a framework for the book
Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century, the following working definition
was offered:

Peace psychology seeks to develop theories and practices aimed at the prevention and mitigation of direct
and structural violence. Framed positively, peace psychology promotes the nonviolent management of
conflict and the pursuit of social justice, what we refer to as peacemaking and peacebuilding, respectively.
(Christie, Wagner, & Winter, 2001, p. 7).

The definition recognized the realities of the post - Cold War era in which the prevention of nuclear war
between the superpowers was no longer the focal concern. Instead, the problem of structural violence,
which kills people slowly though the deprivation of human needs, assumed much greater importance as
peace psychologists in the majority world (i.e., the developing parts of the world that comprise two - thirds
of the world) began to assert their interests and concerns. Accordingly, a 2 × 2 matrix was proposed that

5
organized topics in the book and captured some of the intellectual currents in peace psychology around
the world:

Direct Structural

Violence Direct Violence Structural Violence

Peace Direct Peace (Peace-making) Structural Peace (Peace-Building)

A similar definition of peace psychology was offered by MacNair (2003):

Peace Psychology: the study of mental processes and behavior that lead to violence, prevent violence,
and facilitate non-violence as well as promoting fairness, respect, and dignity for all, for the purpose of
making violence a less likely occurrence and helping to heal its psychological effects.

Moreover, in the post - Cold War period, three major themes could be discerned in peace psychology
scholarship and activism around the world:
(1) A more differentiated perspective on the meanings and types of violence (i.e., structural, episodic,
cultural);
(2) A system view that appreciated the reciprocal links between structurally violent conditions and
episodes of violence; and
(3) Greater sensitivity to the impact of geohistorical context on the manifestations of peace psychology
around the world (Christie, 2006).

In short, as the Cold War wound down, it became increasingly clear that geohistorical context had a
powerful influence on the meanings and types of peace that were most focal.

Although the emerging discipline of peace psychology is a product of the 1980s, throughout the twentieth
century, psychologists have been interested in theory and practice related to social conflict and violence.
The level of interest has waxed and waned in parallel with the intensity of conflicts and threats faced by
the United States (Morawski & Goldstein, 1985). Interest among psychologists was especially high during
the Cold War but also during the "hot wars" of World War I and II.

Role of Psychology in World War I and II

The concerns of peace psychologists are deeply rooted in the field of psychology, not only because the
promotion of human well-being is central to the mission of psychology but also because psychologists
have long been concerned about war and peace. William James, a founder of psychology in the United
States, has been regarded as the first peace psychologist (Deutsch, 1995). Just prior to World War I, James
gave an address on "the moral equivalent of war" in which he highlighted the enthusiastic readiness of
humans to rally around the military flag Games, 1995), a social psychological phenomena akin to

6
"nationalism" that has played out repeatedly for generations, especially when relations between nations
become hostile. James argued that militaristic urges are deeply rooted in humans and that societies must
learn to channel the satisfaction of their needs in productive directions.

Psychologists did not follow James' advice, but they did become involved in U.S. military affairs during
the First World War. Among the more important contributions of psychologists to the war effort was the
development of group intelligence tests that were used to select and classify new recruits, a development
that "put psychology on the map" (Smith, 1986, p.24). Psychologists had even greater involvement during
the Second World War. A number of specialties in psychology emerged and supported the war effort.
Clinical psychologists developed and administered tests to place personnel within the military
establishment and they also treated war-related emotional problems. Social psychologists contributed their
expertise, developing propaganda designed to promote the war effort by boosting morale at home and
demoralizing the enemy abroad. A number of psychologists worked with the Office of Strategic Services,
the precursor of the Central Intelligence Agency, selecting and training people involved in "undercover"
activities in Europe and the Far East. Human factors psychologists participated in the design of weaponry
and other instruments used by the military, and experimental psychologists trained nonhumans to perform
human tasks. The best-known example of the latter was B. F. Skinner's research in which he trained
pigeons to guide pilotless missiles to targets, a program that was ultimately discarded (Herman, 1995). In
all these activities, psychologists were enthusiastic participants in the effort to win World War II, a war
that was regarded by most people as a just war.

Role of Psychology in the Cold War

The ideology of Realpolitik has guided the conduct of foreign policy worldwide for nearly three centuries
(Klare & Chandrani, 1998). Realpolitik is the belief that politics is reducible to three basic goals: keeping
power, increasing power, and demonstrating power (Morganthau, 1972). The international politics of the
United States was, and continues to be, primarily guided by the ideology of Realpolitik. From a Realpolitik
perspective, one sees security in the international system as the balanced capacity among states to use
coercive power. Furthermore, because it is assumed that all sovereign states seek to maximize their power,
and they operate within an international structure that is anarchical, the best way to ensure security is to
be militarily strong and to adopt a policy of deterrence. According to the logic of deterrence, each state
can best ensure its security by threatening any would-be aggressor with a retaliatory blow that would be
unbearably costly to the aggressor. By the conclusion of World War II, a tidy bipolar superpower
arrangement had emerged in the world. The United States and Soviet Union were locked into an
adversarial relationship in which they competed and concentrated their resources in an arms race, a Cold
War that resulted in enormous stockpiles of conventional and nuclear weapons.

During the early years of the Cold War, psychologists continued to support the policies of the U.S.
government. Tensions between the United States and Soviet Union grew, as did the arsenals of nuclear
weapons that were aimed at each other. There were scattered attempts by committees of the American

7
Psychological Association (APA) and the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) to
analyze the implications of the new atomic warfare capability on future international relations, as well as
the potential psychological effects on populations experiencing atomic bombardment. Generally, these
early committees lacked focus but agreed that the major psychological concern was citizens' attitudes
toward atomic warfare and energy. They "emphasized the need to accurately assess and control public
opinion in order to achieve public consensus regarding foreign relations and atomic war" (Morawski &
Goldstein, 1985, p. 278). On the whole, the public was quite supportive of government policies.

Although survey research indicated that Americans were well aware of the bomb, and expressed little
hope about the potential for international agencies to harness the spread of atomic energy and bombs, very
few Americans expressed worry or fear (Cottrell & Eberhart, 1948). The usual psychological
interpretation of the public's low level of concern in the face of the atomic threat was that ordinary
Americans felt helpless, relied on the authorities to deal with the problem, and used a psychological
defense that was called "fear suppression". No one in the psychological community suggested that fear
might be an appropriate response to the threat of nuclear annihilation (Morawski & Goldstein, 1985).

During the 1950s, a growing number of psychologists were employed as scientists and practitioners by
the federal government and the military. Psychologists used their expertise to assess and change the
public's attitudes toward atomic warfare, to deal with emotional problems experienced by persons exposed
to atomic testing, and to reduce soldiers' fear and reluctance to participate in atomic maneuvers (Rand,
1960; Schwartz & Winograd, 1954). Although the activities of psychologists were many and varied, most
psychologists shared the common goal of preparing the country-civilians and military alike-for the
anticipated nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union.

The ideology of Realpolitik prevailed, despite the efforts of a few individuals within the psychological
establishment (such as Gordon Allport, Hadley Cantril, and Otto Klineberg) who argued that the atomic
age required a new form of diplomacy and the abolition of war. Policy makers were not particularly'
receptive to the advice of psychologists, especially in matters of foreign policy. Besides, most
psychologists in the post-World War II era were preoccupied with the development of psychology as a
profession and those who wanted to speak out knew they would be putting themselves at professional risk.
Marked by the "McCarthy era," in which anyone opposed to government policy could be branded a
communist and brutally punished, the U.S. political climate in the early 1950s was not conducive to voices
that opposed government policy.

In other ways psychologists began breaking from the tradition of promoting government policy. Instead
of analyzing ways of ensuring that public opinion coincided with Realpolitik considerations, Soviet
citizens were humanized when interviews with them revealed that their views of the United States were
similar to the views that U.S. citizens had of them, forming a mirror image of one another
(Bronfenbrenner, 1961). At about the same time, some of the pioneers in peace psychology such as Jerome
Frank and Ralph K White were articulating the dangers of developing diabolical enemy images (Frank,

8
1967; White, 1966), which people tend to create, especially when they feel threatened. Even deterrence,
the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy, came under scrutiny as scholars noted the logical and empirical
inconsistencies in the policy (Milburn, 1961). The argument applies even today because there is no logical
or empirical way to prove whether deterrence actually keeps an enemy from attacking. One can only know
when deterrence fails to deter an enemy.

Osgood’s GRIT formulation also fit neatly with a bipolar power arrangement and was widely cited as a
method for drawing down tensions between groups. GRIT proposed that each side could engage in
Graduated Reciprocations in Tension reduction – a reverse arms race in a sense. There is not much
evidence that GRIT was ever applied to the US – Soviet relationship but there was a tantalizing
resemblance to actions Khrushchev and Kennedy undertook that reduced tensions and resulted in the
Limited Test Ban Treaty, which restricted nuclear testing to underground. Also, during the Cold War, a
number of arms control treaties were negotiated and the field of conflict resolution emerged.

As the Cold War wound down, the dismembering of Yugoslavia challenged peace psychologists to more
deeply understand geohistorical and motivational variables that could account for such devastating and
widespread violence. Psychologists were dispatched in record numbers in an effort to deal with trauma.
Other conflicts, such as the one between the Loyalist/Protestant majority and the Republican/Catholic
minority in Northern Ireland, also took center stage as researchers and practitioners applied social
categorization theory to the political –religious division in Northern Ireland, studied the impact of the
conflict on the mental health of children and adults, and examined the prospects for reconciliation. In the
aftermath of 9/11, much of the growth in scholarship was on terrorism as scholars sought to understand
the causes and consequences of terrorism.

Asian Geohistorical Context

While the threat of nuclear annihilation drove much of the content of peace psychology in the West during
the Cold War, the dominant peace narratives in much of Asia (and particularly South and Southeast Asia)
revolved around the colonial vestiges of occupation. For example, the violent episodes between Hindus
and Muslims find their origins in the British partition of India.
The British policy of “divide and conquer” in which certain ethnic groups were favored over others
continues to find expression in communal divisions in Malaysia and Indonesia. Moreover, when the
colonial masters withdrew, the vacuum in political space was often filled by authoritarian rulers.

Hence, collective historical memories in much of Asia have been shaped by foreign occupations and
dictatorships. Not surprisingly, the problem of structural violence, as reflected in enormous differences in
wealth and power, often is the focal concern. In historical contexts where structural violence is focal, the
term peace can be viewed with suspicion, implying a pacifist orientation toward the status quo. What
matters most are social justice movements (i.e., structural peacebuilding) that ratchet up intergroup
tensions and press for a more equitable distribution of material and nonmaterial resources (Montiel &
Noor, 2009).

9
In the post - Cold War world, reactions against authoritarian rule are manifest in collective narratives that
fuel nonviolent democratization movements throughout a large swath of Asia, including East Timor,
Indonesia, Nepal, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. In contrast to the West, the analysis
of People Power movements tends to emphasize religious over secular leadership, collectivism over
individualism, and shared subjectivities rather than objective approaches (Montiel & Noor, 2009). In short,
the focal concerns, manifestations of peace, and contributions of peace psychologists in Asia are animated
by geohistorical context.

The Post-Cold War Era: Peace Psychology comes of Age

The Cold War was a power struggle of global proportions that made certain categories of violence salient.
Using the state as the focal unit of analysis, scholars concentrated their attention on interstate wars, wars
of liberation, secessionist movements, civil wars, and wars in which the superpowers directly intervened
militarily (i.e., interventionist wars). Although many other forms of violence were prevalent, from a state-
centered perspective, what mattered most were those struggles that had a direct bearing on the strategic,
U.S.-Soviet balance of power (George, 1983).

Since the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s, the planet’s bipolar superpower structure has reconfigured
dramatically and entirely new categories of security concerns have emerged. To be sure, the sovereign
states of the international system will still have conflicts to manage, but increasingly, patterns of violence
are not neatly following the contours of our inherited system of sovereign states. In the post-Cold War
era, a complex pattern of interlacing schisms is emerging, which divides people not so much by state
boundaries but by ethnicity, religion, economic well-being, population density, and environmental
sustainability (Klare, 1998). A small sample of what we are now observing globally is the outbreak of
ethnic violence and other forms of identity group conflict and violence, a growing number of economic
and political refugees, ecological devastation and pockets of food insecurity, concentrations of drug
related violence, and international terrorism. These problems are within and across international
boundaries and underscore the need to reorient peace psychology and enlarge its scope of practice. The
current volume was conceived within the context of these new challenges and represents an attempt to
reinvigorate the search for psychological analyses that can inform theory and practice in peace psychology
for the twenty-first century.

Scope of Peace Psychology

Peace psychologists in the post-Cold War era remain concerned about the problem of violence but they
are enlarging the radius of their concerns to include the insidious problem of structural violence, which
occurs when basic human needs are not met and life spans are shortened because of inequalities in the
way political and economic structures of a society distribute resources (Galtung, 1969). Moreover, the
"peace" in peace psychology is being cast in a far more comprehensive framework, requiring an ambitious
agenda that attends not only to traditional concerns about the nonviolent resolution of conflict but also to

10
growing concerns about the pursuit of socially just ends. These new emphases in peace psychology require
nothing short of a redefinition of the field. Accordingly, we offer the following definition that captures
the thrust of the current volume:

“Peace psychology seeks to develop theories and practices aimed at the prevention and mitigation of
direct and structural violence. Framed positively, peace psychology promotes the nonviolent management
of conflict and the pursuit of social justice, what we refer to as peacemaking and peacebuilding,
respectively.”

The emergence of peace psychology as an area of interest with its own journal, book series, international
conferences, undergraduate courses, and graduate specialties has provided a measure of legitimacy for
many psychologists who subscribe to a scholar activism model in their pursuit of peace and social justice.
But overall, it is probably fair to say that psychologists, particularly in the first half of the twentieth
century, contributed more to the war-fighting capability of the United States than to peace. Since then,
psychologists have contributed to peace in a number of ways. Psychologists have also drawn from
Bandura’s social cognitive theory as an intellectual scaffolding to produce serial social dramas that have
promoted social justice through demonstrable changes in literacy, gender equality, HIV prevention, and
family planning. Irving Janis’ concept of groupthink has made its way into the popular media and is
regarded by current members of the executive branch of the US government as an undesirable decision-
making style. Hamdi Malik and colleagues at the University of Indonesia used grassroots and unofficial
diplomacy approach to bring Christian and Muslim communities together in a social movement called
Baku Bae (reconciliation), replacing violence with the cooperative pursuit of common goals.

Management to Transformation: Peacekeeping, Peacemaking, Peacebuilding, Reconciliation,

Conflict Management, Conflict Resolution, Conflict Prevention and Conflict Transformation

Peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peacebuilding processes in a society

Before we delve into the explanation of peacekeeping, peacemaking and peacebuilding processes in a
society we need to explain the concept of conflict. Conflicts are dynamic as they escalate and deescalate
and are constituted by a complex interplay of attitudes and behaviors. Galtung suggests that conflict could
be viewed as a triangle, with contradiction (C), attitude (A), and behavior (B) at its vertices.

A Attitudes

B Behaviors C Contradictions

11
Here the contradiction refers to the underlying conflict situation, which includes the actual or perceived
incompatibility of goals between the conflict parties generated by a mis-match between social values and
social structure. In a symmetric conflict, the contradiction is defined by the parties, their interests, and the
clash of interests between them. In an asymmetric conflict, it is defined by the parties, their relationship
and the conflict of interests inherent in the relationship. Attitude includes the parties’ perceptions and
misperceptions of each other and of themselves. These can be positive or negative but in violent conflicts
parties tend to develop demeaning stereotypes of the other, and attitudes are often influenced by emotions
such as fear, anger, bitterness and hatred. Behaviour can include cooperation or coercion, gestures
signifying conciliation or hostility. Violent conflict behaviour is characterized by threats, coercion and
destructive attacks. Galtung sees conflict as a dynamic process in which structure, attitudes and behaviour
are constantly changing and influencing one another. As a conflict emerges, it becomes a conflict
formation as parties’ interests come into conflict or the relationship, they are in becomes oppressive.
Conflict parties then organize around this structure, to pursue their interests. They develop hostile attitudes
and conflictual behavior. (Quoted in Ramsbotham 2016) Conflicts can take long periods of time to gestate
unnoticed before they suddenly erupt into overt violence.

Galtung also distinguished between direct violence (children are murdered), structural violence (children
die through poverty) and cultural violence (whatever blinds us to this or seeks to justify it). We end direct
violence by changing conflict behaviours, structural violence by removing structural contradictions and
injustices, and cultural violence by changing attitudes. (Ramsbotham et al. 2016) Galtung distinguishes
negative from positive peace, the former characterized by the absence of direct violence, the latter by the
overcoming of structural and cultural violence as well. Negative peace can be associated with the more
limited but better defined 'minimalist' agenda of preventing war, and in particular nuclear war. (Quoted in
Ramsbotham et al. 2016) Positive peace, in contrast, includes the key ideas of legitimacy and justice. An
unjust structure or relationship in this terminology is not a peaceful one. In order to achieve positive peace,
therefore, injustice must be removed. Omeje 2008 argues that direct violence can be resolved by changing
conflict behaviours, structural violence by removing structural contradictions and injustices, and cultural
violence by changing attitudes. With reference to the conflict triangle, it can be suggested that peace-
making aims to change the attitudes of the main protagonists, peace-keeping lowers the level of destructive
behaviour, and peacebuilding tries to overcome the contradictions which lie at the root of the conflict.
(Galtung, 1996)

Peacekeeping:
Peacekeeping, in a generic is an activity which involves the interposition of military and police forces
between conflicting groups, either to stop violence or to prevent it. The groups to be kept apart could be
state agents, paramilitaries, militia, guerrilla groups, or even mobs. What they share is a desire to use
violence against the other side as a way of conducting their conflict. Over the years, we have witnessed
peace keeping forces organized by the UN and regional organizations. As these make clear, operations are
not limited to the efforts. But nonetheless, this organization has a special place due to its grand mission of
being a guardian of international peace and security.

12
Ironically, despite so many practical examples, the concept of peacekeeping is not specifically mentioned
anywhere in the UN charter. Indeed, the precise charter basis for many UN peacekeeping operations has
remained ambiguous for decades. Up to the collapse of communism in the late 1980s, there were 13 UN
peacekeeping operations, most of which concerned conflicts that arose after European decolonization.
Many other issues, particularly East-West conflicts, on the other hand, were dealt with outside the UN due
to the lack of cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union.

As they evolved from the 1950s to the 1980s, the traditional tasks of UN peacekeeping operations included
interposing between conflicting parties and monitoring cease-fires. These tasks were usually carried out
on the grounds of three key principles: the consent of the parties, impartiality (of the peacekeepers), and
non-use of force.

The principle of non-use of force was especially central to UN peacekeeping for many years. In fact, more
than half the UN peacekeeping operations before 1988 consisted of only unarmed military observers and
not counting situational exceptions, force was used only in cases of self-defense. But non-use of force, at
times, made peacekeeping forces ineffective as well. For example, in Cyprus in 1974 and in Lebanon in
the presence of UN peacekeeping could not prevent the breakdown order and subsequent foreign
interventions. Nevertheless, the achievements of UN peacekeeping forces between 1948-1988 were,
overall, modestly successful. They included effective freezing of many international conflicts, some
reduction of competitive interventions by neighboring or major powers, and the isolation of local conflicts
from the Cold-War's ideological struggle.

Since mid-1988, there has been a great expansion in the number of peacekeeping forces. While from 1948
to 1978, only a total of 13 peacekeeping forces were set up, and in the following ten-year period, no new
forces were established, from May 1988 to October 1993, a further twenty forces were created. As of June
2005, the number of UN peacekeeping operations has reached 60, 17 of which are still operating in the
field. These involve 6.6574 military personnel and civilian police. A main reason for this expansion has
been the increased capacity of the UN Security Council to agree on action in security crises after the end
of the Cold War. The decreasing ideological clashes between the US and Soviet Union manifested itself
most clearly in the decline of the veto at the Security Council.

A further reason for the expansion of peacekeeping operations is also linked with the end of the Cold War
in that the post-Cold War era has generally generated an increasing need for international peacekeeping
forces. For example, in the early 1990s, a series of peace agreements on Afghanistan, Angola, Namibia,
Central America, and Cambodia called for impartial international forces to assist in implementing
ceasefires, troop withdrawals, and elections. Also, the collapse of two federal communist states, the Soviet
Union and Yugoslavia, produced many ethnic conflicts that called for active UN interventions.

13
Apart from the numerical increase in peacekeeping forces, since the end of the Cold War, UN
peacekeeping operations have also involved a great number of activities that have been either totally new
or implemented on a much larger scale than before, such as:
• Monitoring and even running local elections, as in Namibia, Angola, Mozambique, the Congo, and
East Timor (now independent Timor-Leste).
• Protecting certain areas as "safe areas" from adversary attacks so that people feel secure at least in
these areas.
• Guarding the weapons surrendered by or taken from the parties in conflict.
• Ensuring the smooth delivery of humanitarian relief supplies during an ongoing conflict, as typically
the case in Somalia, Rwanda, Liberia, and Sudan.
• Assisting in the reconstruction of state functions in war-torn societies, as in Bosnia Herzegovina, El
Salvador, the Congo, East Timor, and Liberia.

Above all, the central problem in the expansion of UN peacekeeping tasks today is the blurring of the
distinction between peacekeeping and coercive action. Providing order in many conflicting areas of the
world inevitably resulted in increasing militarization of peace missions. This, then, forced UN
peacekeeping forces face a serious dilemma: remaining passively impartial or establishing order, even at
the cost of the use of force. The latest examples reveal that UN peacekeeping forces take a more activist
mission in which there has been a much-reduced emphasis on consent and non-use of force.

Peacemaking:
Peacemaking by third parties involves a combination of multi-level efforts that go far beyond
peacekeeping. The major difference between the two is that while peacekeeping activities focus on the
behavioral component of conflict, peacemaking concentrates on the conditions giving rise to conflict, with
the aim of altering them for the better to terminate the recurrence of the issue. Thus, peacemaking
necessities much time and more efforts by third parties from many different angles.

At the international level, the peacemaking task has been carried out by a wide variety of intermediaries,
ranging from individuals, such as, the US Secretary of State or the President of Egypt, to such
organizations as the UN, International Committee of Red Cross, and nongovernmental organizations. Such
a heterogeneous collection of intermediaries raises questions about factors contributing to the success of
peacemaking.

Most and practitioners of intermediary activity have argued that in for the parties to or ask for, third-party
intervention, the conflict must be " ripe. The term ripeness refers to the condition of “mutually hurting
stalemate" in a conflict situation. A mutually hurting stalemate begins when one side realizes that it is
unable to achieve its aims, resolve the problem, or win the conflict by itself; it is completed when the other
side reaches the same conclusion. Losing hope for victory and wanting to avoid further costs, the parties
look around for a convenient third-party to make them settle. At this point, the conflict is considered ripe
for third-party intervention.

14
Apart from ripeness, there are several other conditions determining the acceptance and success of third
parties. In the conflict resolution literature, it is suggested that third parties possess the following
characteristics and qualities in the process of peacemaking as well:
• Perceived Distance from Attaining Goals in Conflict: This means that third-party candidates should
have a low level of direct interest in the eventual outcome of the conflict. In other words, the third-
parties' aim in intervening in the conflict should not clash, or directly clash, with the aim of the parties.

• Little Likelihood of Exploiting the Parties: The intervention-by third parties is often legitimized by
the goal of conflict reduction. In reality, however, the desire to make peace as the only motive is hardly
the case. In some cases, a conflict may threaten to escalate and draw in additional parties. Actors
fearing such escalation and expansion may seek to reduce the conflict to avoid becoming involved in
hostilities. In some others, third parties intervene in a conflict to increase their influence on the parties.
They may hope to win the gratitude of one or both parties, and this gratitude is reserved to be used for
a later purpose.

• Capacity to Help: Acceptance of mediation also depends on the expectation of the parties of attractive
outcomes for themselves. The most obvious motive is the expectation that mediation will provide an
outcome more favorable than the outcome gained by continued conflict; that is, a way out. The parties
also hope that mediation will produce an agreement when direct negotiation is not possible or will
provide a more favorable settlement than can be achieved directly by the parties. In any case, the
acceptance of mediation is based on such cost-benefit calculations. Thus, third-parties must be capable
of serving the expectations and needs of the parties in conflict.

• Possession of Mediation Skills: Finally, to be welcomed by the parties and to successfully handle the
mediation process, third parties should possess basic mediation skills. These include - but are not
limited to- setting an agenda, carefully planning negotiation stages (between the parties), reviewing
key issues and concepts in the conflict, searching for a solution rather than analyzing responsibility,
calling for specific exercises and thought processes which might move the parties from conflictive
thinking to creative design, promoting ideas and making suggestions towards a solution after
negotiation is well advanced, being sensitive to the needs of the parties, and maintaining neutrality
while remaining in contact with the parties.

The mediators who intervene in international conflicts basically use three modes to accomplish their
purposes- communication, formulation, and manipulation, usually in that order. The second mode of
mediation requires the mediator to enter into the substance of the negotiation. Since a conflict may not
only impede communications between parties but be so encompassing that it prevents them from
conceiving ways out of the dispute, the parties need a mediator as formulator too.

Once face-to-face discussions are underway, the main functions of a mediator traditionally include:
▪ Providing ideas or possible solutions, especially when the parties are deadlocked.

15
▪ Initiating proposals which originate from one or other, but which could not be advanced for fear of
revealing weakness or uncertainty.
▪ De-committing the parties by providing some formula by which they can gracefully abandon
previous positions to which public acts and statements have heavily committed them.
▪ Acting as a substitute source of ideas or proposals.

The third mode requires the mediator to act as a manipulator. Here the mediator assumes the maximum
degree of involvement becoming a party to the solution. As a manipulator, the mediator uses its power
to bring the parties to an agreement, pushing and pulling them away from conflict into resolution.

Peacebuilding:
The term peacebuilding originated in the field of peace studies almost 35 years ago when in 1975 Johan
Galtung coined the term in his pioneering work, "Three Approaches to Peace: Peacekeeping, Peace-
making, and Peacebuilding", where he stated that:

Peace has a structure different from, perhaps over and above, peacekeeping and ad hoc peace-making ...
The mechanisms that peace is based on should be built into the structure and be present as a reservoir for
the system itself to draw up ... More specifically, structures must be found that remove causes of wars and
offer alternatives to war in situations where wars might occur (Galtung1975).

These observations constitute the intellectual antecedents of the contemporary notion of peacebuilding i.e.
an endeavor aiming to create sustainable peace by addressing the root causes of violent conflict and
eliciting indigenous capacities for peaceful management and resolution of conflict. Interestingly even
before the conceptualization of the term peacebuilding, the practice of external countries assisting war-
tom societies in reconstruction and post-war rebuilding existed. For example, after the Second World War,
the United States (U.S.) played a central role in helping the reconstruction of Europe and Japan. Likewise,
after the end of the Cold War several countries including Cambodia, Afghanistan, El Salvador and Sierra
Leone received external assistance for the purpose of post-war reconstruction. However, conceptual
clarity on peacebuilding and its adoption as a distinctive approach to peace was not present before 1975.
In fact, even though Galtung in 1975 illustrated the difference between peacekeeping, peacemaking and
peacebuilding as three approaches to peace, these three terms have often been used interchangeably and
considerable confusion regarding their usage and meaning exists. For a better understanding of the concept
of peacebuilding, it is essential to make a concrete differentiation between the above terms.

Peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding represent three distinct yet interlinked phases in the peace
process following violent conflict. Peacemaking is defined as 'action to bring hostile parties to agreement,
essentially through peaceful means as those foreseen in Chapter VI of the Charter of the UN' (Boutros-
Ghali 1992: Para 20). The specific tools of peacemaking as outlined in Article 33 of the UN Charter

16
include negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional
agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice. Peacemaking is a strategy usually
preceding peacekeeping but also pursued in tandem with peacekeeping, which essentially aims at
reconciliation and encourages the negotiation and settlement of the political conflict underlying the
violence.

Peacekeeping which is essentially a form of third party intervention aimed at facilitating the peaceful
settlement of disputes, is defined as the prevention, containment, moderation and termination of hostilities
between or within states, through the medium of a peaceful third party intervention, organized and directed
internationally, using multinational forces of soldiers, police and civilians to restore and maintain peace
(Fetherston 1994: 124). Peacekeeping refers to the deployment of a UN presence in the field, hitherto with
the consent of all parties concerned, normally involving UN military and/or police personnel and
frequently civilians as well (Boutros-Ghali 1992: Para 20).

Given these definitions of peacemaking and peacekeeping, there are two distinct ways to understand
peacebuilding. According to the United Nations, peacebuilding consists of a wide range of activities
associated with capacity building, reconciliation, and societal transformation (Boutros-Ghali 1992). It is
a long-term process that occurs after violent conflict has slowed down or come to a halt and thus
peacebuilding is the phase of the peace process that takes place after peacemaking and peacekeeping.
However, many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), on the other hand, understand peacebuilding as
an umbrella concept that encompasses not only long-term transformative efforts, but also peacemaking
and peacekeeping. In this view, peacebuilding includes early warning and response efforts, violence
prevention, advocacy work, civilian and military peacekeeping, military intervention, humanitarian
assistance, establishment of peace zones (Maiese 2003).

An interesting manner by which the relation between peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding can
be analyzed is by examining the linkages between them at two levels, namely the macro and micro levels.
Peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding at the macro level are described most often as separate but
interdependent activities. For, peacemaking is the area of activity in which diplomats or specially
appointed high-level UN secretariat officials act as mediators and/or negotiators in conflict situations.
Further in relation to peacekeeping, peacemaking can work in parallel with a peacekeeping mission,
provide a settlement package prior to peacekeeping and then continue involvement through the
implementation phase, or work without reference to peacekeeping. However, at the macro-level
peacebuilding is normally not linked explicitly to peacekeeping processes, although there are exceptions.

On the other hand, the link between the processes of peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding at the
micro level is quite evident. For, peacekeepers at this level carry out activities which approximate the
definitions of peacemaking and peacebuilding. For example, peacekeepers do negotiate, mediate, and
facilitate, and perform several humanitarian and other peacebuilding functions. The argument according
to Fetherston (1994) is that peacekeepers do not only engage in micro-level peacemaking and peace

17
building, but that (1) such activity should provide a basic rationale for peacekeeping, (2) peacekeepers are
uniquely placed to begin processes of reconciliation and reconstruction as well as facilitate communication
at all levels in the conflict-tom communities in which they operate, (3) a much more considered and
controlled approach which would legitimize these activities is needed, and (4) in order to carry out these
functions in an effective, coherent and testable manner, peacekeeping needs to be directed from within a
conceptual framework of peaceful third party intervention.

The term peacebuilding became a part of the official discourse in 1992, when the then UN Secretary
General Boutros Boutros-Ghali used the term in "An agenda for peace: preventive diplomacy,
peacemaking and peacekeeping". Initially the concept was linked specifically to post conflict societies as
Boutros-Ghali, defined peacebuilding in relation to a conflict continuum that passed through peacemaking
and peacekeeping. Peacebuilding was thus associated with the post-conflict phase and defined as " action
to identify and support structures which will tend to strengthen and solidify a peace in order to avoid a
relapse into conflict" (Boutros- Ghali 1992).

This multidimensional concept of peacebuilding since its origin in 1992 has come to exhibit certain
characteristics which not only define the nature of peacebuilding but have also shaped the manner in which
peacebuilding practice has evolved. These characteristics which have been identified by several scholars
including Sens (2004), Keating and Knight (2004), Maiese (2003) and Tschirgi (2004) include
• Peacebuilding has five main dimensions, namely political, social, economic, security and legal.
• Security is central to the concept of peacebuilding and establishing security is considered the pre-
requisite for post-conflict peacebuilding.
• A commitment to local capacity building from the earliest stages is vital for sustainability of
peacebuilding.
• Support from external actors is critical for post-conflict reconstruction because of the fragility of
societies emerging from war. However proper mechanisms need to be established to ensure that
external and internal actors work within a coherent strategy, establish priorities, and mobilize the
necessary resources.
• Timely, opportunistic and quick-impact interventions are critical in influencing peacebuilding
outcomes.
• Adequate, predictable and flexible funding is essential to support post-conflict reconstruction.
• Post-conflict reconstruction involves appropriate responses at the local, national, regional and
international levels.

These characteristics, which can also be termed as the operational principles of post-conflict peacebuilding
signify that peacebuilding both as a concept and as a field of practice has evolved considerably since its
inception in the early 1990s. Interestingly, the broadening scope of the term and practice of peacebuilding
has resulted in it not only being widely used but also often ill-defined and contested, resulting in
deficiencies in analysis, policy and practice.

18
The way peacemaking, peacebuilding and peacekeeping are useful in conflict resolution

The end of the Cold War, especially the 1990s and the early 2000s, coincidentally witnessed an
accentuation in Africa of the incidence of intra-state conflicts - horizontally between different socio-ethnic
and cultural aggregates within a national territory, and vertically, between groups who feel excluded and
marginalized from existing power structures on the one hand, and the central authority on the other.
(Omeje 2008). Traditionally, the task of conflict resolution has been seen as helping parties who perceive
their situation as zero-sum (Self’s gain is Other’s loss) to re-perceive it as a nonzero-sum conflict (in
which both may gain or both may lose), and then to assist parties to move in the positive sum direction.
There are various possible outcomes of the conflict between parties A and B. (Ramsbotham et al. 2016).
What are to count as the relevant conflicts? Conflict resolution analysts have traditionally included all
levels of conflict from intrapersonal conflict through to international conflict, and all stages of conflict
escalation and de-escalation. Contemporary conflict will be mainly 'internally' generated and that
interstate war of the classic kind can be virtually ignored. This is in marked contrast to most quantitative
studies of major armed conflict and war since 1945.

Peacebuilding, peacemaking and peacekeeping carried out by international organizations would include
the following: the provision of security, the rule of law (including a codified and promulgated body of
laws with a reasonably effective police and justice system), basic services (including emergency relief,
support for the poorest, and essential healthcare), and at least a rudimentary ability to formulate and
implement budget plans and to collect revenue through taxation. The phase of normalization and
afterwards (Figure 2) is characterized by demilitarized politics; societal security; transformed cultures of
violence; non politicized judiciary and police; respect for individual and minority rights; reduction in
organized crime; peaceful transition of power via democratic elections; development of civil society with
genuine political community; equitable integration of local and national politics; development in the long-
term interest of citizens from all backgrounds; depoliticization of social divisions; the healing of
psychological wounds; progress towards gender equality; education towards long-term reconciliation;
integration into cooperative and equitable regional/global structures. Usually there are all sorts of
international organizations that specialize in one or two of the above areas. For example, after the 1994
genocide against Tutsis in Rwanda, UNDP helped in reconciliation and justice projects while UNHCR
assisted in the repatriation of refugees.

Thus, peace-keeping refers to the interposition of international armed forces to separate the armed forces
of belligerents, often now associated with civil tasks such as monitoring and policing and supporting
humanitarian intervention. Peace-making is used in the sense of moving towards settlement of armed
conflict, where conflict parties are induced to reach agreement voluntarily. Peace-building underpins the
work of peace-making and peace-keeping by addressing structural issues and the long-term relationships
between conflictants. The three approaches are useful to international organizations, individuals and
nations that work on conflict resolution in post conflict societies like Rwanda and Jeju Island.

19
Reconciliation

Peacebuilding according to Morris (undated) “involves a full range of approaches, processes, and stages
needed for transformation toward more sustainable, peaceful relationships and governance modes and
structures. Peacebuilding includes building legal and human rights institutions as well as fair and effective
governance and dispute resolution processes and systems. To be effective, peacebuilding activities require
careful and participatory planning, coordination among various efforts, and sustained commitments by
both local and donor partners”. The idea of peacebuilding as a long-term process is shared by many
international practitioners, with most including reconciliation and the re-establishing or mending of
damaged interpersonal and social relations as a vital component thereof.

Thus, we see peacebuilding as a process distinct from peacemaking. We see peacebuilding as a process or
series of processes that seek to establish peace and prevent violence from continuing or re-emerging by
addressing the root causes and the consequences of conflict. This can involve a number of processes
including, amongst others, building institutions, community development, socio-economic development,
social reconstruction, reconciliation, empowerment, mechanisms to address the past, and building
effective governance. In doing this one would have to consider different peacebuilding strategies at the
individual, community and political levels. We understand reconciliation to be a component of
peacebuilding. The relationship between peacebuilding and reconciliation is summarized in a diagram
below.

20
That said, we also need to ask whether a degree of reconciliation is necessary in any peacebuilding process,
whether a socio-economic development programme through to a process of localized institutional
building.

One of the most important challenges facing the international community is the peaceful resolution of
numerous harsh and violent conflicts. The challenge is posed on two levels. The first involves the
temporary management of the conflict; it usually involves negotiation, meditation and arbitration, and
rests on leaders and elites, although it still requires support by the general population. The second, deeper,
level involves reconciliation. This requires change in the societal repertoire shared by society members.
The repertoire that feeds the conflict must evolve into a new repertoire that can serve as a basis for a
culture of peace. This latter challenge is of great importance because it both lays the foundations for
successful conflict resolution and at the same time prepares the society members to live in lasting peace.

There is a consensus that reconciliation involves the formation or restoration of genuine peaceful
relationships between societies and that this requires extensive changes in the sociopsychological
repertoire of group members in both societies (Ackermann 1994; Arnson 1999; Asmal et al. 1997; Bar-

21
Siman-Tov 2004; Bar-Tal 2000a; Gardner Feldman 1999; Krepon and Sevak 1995; Lederach 1997;
Norval 1999; Rothstein 1999; Wilmer 1998). It has become evident that even when a formal peace
agreement is reached, it may fall far short of establishing genuine peaceful relations between former
adversaries (e.g., Knox and Quirk 2000; Lederach 1997; Simpson 1997; Wilmer 1998). Formal conflict
resolution sometimes abides only with the leaders who negotiated an agreement, or in the narrow strata
around them, or among only a small part of the society. In these cases, the majority of society members
may not accept the negotiated compromises, or even if they do, they may still hold the world view that
has fueled the conflict. As a result, formal resolutions of conflicts can be unstable—they may collapse, as
in the case of Angola, or may turn into a cold peace as in the case of the Israeli-Egyptian relations.

The essence of reconciliation involves socio-psychological processes consisting of changes of

motivations, goals, beliefs, attitudes and emotions by the majority of society members (Kelman 1999;
Lederach 1997; Shonholtz 1998; Wilmer 1998). In fact, it is necessary that these changes begin in a pre-
agreement phase in order to facilitate the peaceful resolution of the conflict and its support by the society
members. It is by its nature gradual, reciprocal and voluntary. The fundamental requirement is that the
psychological basis will penetrate deep into the societal fabric so as to be shared by the majority of the
members of both societies (Asmal et al. 1997; Bar-Tal 2000b; Lederach 1997; Staub 2006). Only such
change guarantees an initial successful conflict resolution and a later solidification of the peaceful relations
between rival groups: a stable foundation that is rooted in the psyche of the people. The initiation of such
change depends on such factors as the level of violence, the realization that continuation of the conflict
will cause to great costs, the degree of support for the peace

In summary, reconciliation can be viewed as moving from the premise that relationships require attention
to build peace. Reconciliation is the process of addressing conflictual and fractured relationships and this
includes a range of different activities. We see reconciliation as a voluntary act that cannot be imposed
(IDEA, 2003). The essence of reconciliation involves socio-psychological processes consisting of changes
of motivations, goals, beliefs, attitudes and emotions by the majority of society members (Kelman 1999;
Lederach 1997; Shonholtz 1998; Wilmer 1998).

While most researchers agree on the importance of the psychological component in reconciliation, they
are vague or disagree about its nature. Most have recognized the importance of creating a common
psychological framework in order to promote the process of reconciliation (Asmal et al. 1997; Hayes
1998; Hayner 1999; Lederach 1997; Volkan 1998; Whittaker 1999). They realize that during the conflict
the rival parties had different views about the conflict, about each other and about their relationship. They
know that to ensure reconciliation these different views have to adjust dramatically. What then is the
nature of the common psychological framework that is required?

There is no doubt that the first condition for reconciliation is legitimization and humanization of the rival.
This recognition allows viewing the rival as a legitimate partner in peace and deserving of humane
treatment. In addition, reconciliation requires viewing the conflict as solvable and recognizing that both

22
sides have legitimate contentions, goals and needs that must be satisfied in order to establish peaceful
relations.

On the general level, a number of definitional specifications have been proposed by different writers. For
example, Marrow (1999) pointed out that reconciliation “is reestablishment of friendship that can inspire
sufficient trust across the traditional split” (p. 132). In emphasizing trust, he asserts that the basic thrust
of reconciliation is to be sensitive to other’s needs, the principal question being not what they have to do,
but what we have to do to promote the reconciliation process. Lederach (1997) focuses mainly on intra-
societal reconciliation and posits four elements of it that can be extended also to inter-societal conflicts:
truth, which requires open revelation of the past, including admission, acknowledgment and transparency;
mercy, which requires acceptance, forgiveness, compassion and healing for building new relations;
justice, which requires rectification, restitution, compensation and social restructuring; and peace, which
underscores common future, cooperation, coordination, wellbeing, harmony, respect, institutionalized
mechanisms for conflict resolution and security for all the parties.

A reconciliation process generally involves five interwoven and related strands. These are:

1. Developing a shared vision of an interdependent and fair society: The development of a vision of a
shared future requiring the involvement of the whole society, at all levels Although individuals may have
different opinions or political beliefs, the articulation of a common vision of an interdependent, just,
equitable, open and diverse society is a critical part of any reconciliation process.

2. Acknowledging and dealing with the past: Acknowledging the hurt, losses, truths and suffering of
the past. Providing the mechanisms for justice, healing, restitution or reparation, and restoration (including
apologies if necessary and steps aimed at redress). To build reconciliation, individuals and institutions
need to acknowledge their own role in the conflicts of the past, accepting and learning from it in a
constructive way so as to guarantee non-repetition.

3. Building positive relationships: Relationship building or renewal following violent conflict addressing
issues of trust, prejudice, intolerance in this process, resulting in accepting commonalities and differences,
and embracing and engaging with those who are different to us.

4. Significant cultural and attitudinal change: Changes in how people relate to, and their attitudes
towards, one another. The culture of suspicion, fear, mistrust and violence is broken down and
opportunities and space opened up in which people can hear and be heard. A culture of respect for human
rights and human difference is developed creating a context where each citizen becomes an active
participant in society and feels a sense of belonging.

23
5. Substantial social, economic and political change: The social, economic and political structures
which gave rise to the conflict and estrangement are identified, reconstructed or addressed, and
transformed.

It is important to note two additional points in relation to any process of reconciliation.

The first of these is that a reconciliation process always contains paradoxes and even contradictions. It is
not a neat or easy process, and can in itself seem incongruous. Lederach (1997) writes most eloquently
about this, noting that:
… reconciliation can be seen as dealing with three specific paradoxes. First, in an overall sense,
reconciliation promotes an encounter between the open expression of the painful past, on the one hand,
and the search for the articulation of a long-term, interdependent future, on the other hand. Second,
reconciliation provides a place for truth and mercy to meet, where concerns for exposing what has
happened and for letting go in favor of renewed relationships are validated and embraced. Third,
reconciliation recognizes the need to give time and place to both justice and peace, where redressing the
wrong is held together with the envisioning of a common, connected future.

Thus, we can see that reconciliation entails engaging in the process of trying to address these complex
paradoxes.
Second, we cannot escape the fact that reconciliation is a morally-loaded concept and different people will
bring their own ideological bias to the subject. An individual’s definition or understanding of
reconciliation is generally informed by their basic beliefs about the world. Different ideologies of
reconciliation can be identified. For example, a religious ideology often emphasizes the re-discovering of
a new conscience of individuals and society through moral reflection, repentance, confession and rebirth;
a human rights approach might see reconciliation as a process only achieved by regulating social
interaction through the rule of law and preventing certain forms of violations of rights from happening
again; or an intercommunal understanding may see the process of reconciliation as being about bridging
the divides between different cultures and identity.

None (and even all) of these approaches might be correct—but we make the point to highlight the fact that
our analysis of the subject has revealed time and time again that individuals’ underlying assumptions and
ideologies fundamentally affect how they see reconciliation. We need to take cognizance of this as the
debate on reconciliation unfolds.

Culture of Peace
For reconciliation to develop into a peace culture, the former enemies must develop cooperative relations
with one another and manage their inevitable conflicts constructively. Woven into the framework of a
culture of peace are values of justice, respect of human rights, sensitivity, acceptance and respect for
cultural differences, values and practices conducive to nonviolent conflict resolution, and above all
recognition of the superiority and importance of peace as a value and practice. From a psychological
perspective, this requires the following bases:

24
Mutual Knowledge. Past rivals should acquire knowledge about each other. The scope of knowledge
should be wide, covering various domains, such as the cultural, religious, societal, political, geographical
or historical. Knowledge is essential for the development of peace culture since ignorance and distorted
or selective information are often the causes of hostility, prejudice and hatred. Mutual knowledge
facilitates the development of acquaintanceship, recognition and respect.

Mutual Acceptance. Both sides should accept each other on both the personal and national levels. It
means mutual inclusion, legitimization and humanization. Mutual acceptance is a condition for developing
cooperative and friendly relations. Building and maintaining trustful relations is the key aspect in mutual
acceptance. It serves as a basis for establishing secure existence in the very wide meaning for each group,
which is a necessary condition for stabilizing peace.

Mutual Understanding. Beyond knowing and accepting, both sides should understand each other by
developing empathy and sensitivity to each other’s needs, values, traditions, and experiences. Such an
understanding prevents many conflicts because both sides realize that their relationship is governed by
mixed motives so that conflict may cause both sides to lose and in peace both sides can gain.

Respect for Differences and Focus on Commonalities. Peace culture both respects pluralism and
differences, and stresses commonalities and constructs common goals. All parties have to look for
commonalities as well as identify and respect differences. This respect provides the assurance necessary
for the secure existence of each party’s identity, a condition for peaceful co-existence. Each group has to
be able to fulfill its own needs, including its needs to hold its collective Identity.

Development of Cooperative Relations. The development of cooperative relations applies especially to

the structural and concrete side of peace culture. The cooperation has unlimited scope as it can be part of
economic, political, cultural, military, educational and environmental relations. Of special importance are
military and security cooperative mechanisms that guard peaceful relations and prevent misperceptions
and misunderstandings.

Valuing Peace. It is essential that peace be a supreme value. All parties should view peace as a desirable
and important value, and as a superordinate goal. It should be viewed in concrete and relevant terms, that
is, as a realistic and achievable goal. Moreover, it is necessary to establish a common moral as well as
utilitarian ground for maintaining peace and imparting this to new generations.

Mechanisms for Maintaining Peace. The culture of peace places great emphasis on mechanisms that
allow for the maintenance of peace. This requires the development of various kinds of institutions,
organizations, cooperative exchanges, etc., which intend to solidify and crystallize peaceful relations.
Moreover, the development of culture requires building new narratives, symbols and rituals that explain,
maintain, justify and even glorify peace. Of special importance establishing continuous peace education

25
that can socialize the younger generation into the culture of peace. Mass media has a role and a mission
in maintaining peace, as well as, various cultural channels, such as literature, films or theatrical plays.

These bases must be developed because peace is not only a political process, but also a way of life reflected
in the perceptions, thoughts, feelings and behaviors of individuals and nations alike. Like any other
culture, peace culture includes abstract and concrete expressions and products, such as symbols, myths,
language, collective memories, values and goals. The symbols consist of such tangible and non-tangible
elements as artifacts, constructions, art works, scripts, habits, rules, concepts, narratives, myths or
knowledge related to a group and to other categories. These evolve as a product of lasting and meaningful
experiences. Eventually, when the process is successful, the culture of peace is shared by society members
who were previously involved in conflict and provides meaning about the reality of the society and the
world in general. It supplies the rules for practices that serve as a safeguard of peace. When society
members, at least the great majority, internalize the values, beliefs, attitudes and practices of culture of
peace, it is possible to characterize the society as peaceful, and its collective identity is imprinted by this
characteristic.

Process of Reconciliation
The bases outlined above can be developed by the coordinated efforts of the parties that were engaged in
intractable conflict and/or via a process of self-collective healing through which each party heals itself
independently of the other party. In view of the psychological dynamics that dominated years of intractable
conflict, reconciliation usually requires mobilization of the masses in support of the new peaceful relations
with the past enemy. This complex process requires a defined policy, planned initiatives and wide variety
of activities that can convince society members of the necessity, utility, value and feasibility of the peace
process (Bloomfield et al. 2003).

The reconciliation process begins when the parties in conflict start to change their beliefs, attitudes, goals,
motivations and emotions about the conflict, and each other’s future relations. Such changes usually begin
before the initial resolution to the conflict and can pave the way to a peaceful resolution. In turn, peaceful
resolutions of aspects of the conflict and the initiation of measures to establish formal relations serve as a
crucial catalyst for subsequent psychological changes. The reconciliation process is an informal one that
lasts for a very long time and does not have a formal beginning or end. It is not a linear process of
continuous change in the direction of peaceful relations, but one of regressions and progresses.

One must note that reconciliation demands reciprocity. It cannot evolve only on one side when the other
side still cultivates a culture of conflict. There must be some level of synchronization, and although there
is no need for complete equalization in any stage of the process, for a long time there cannot be a
considerable gap between the two groups in their reconciliation attempts. Both sides have to move along
a path with clear confidence-building acts that mutually reinforce the process of peacemaking and serve
as building blocks for moving to the next stages. This is a cyclic process of peacebuilding, which is
antithetical to the process of the vicious cycle of violence described by Bar-Tal (2007).

26
The process of psychological change almost never begins with a large-scale change by the majority of
society members. Rather, it begins with a small minority and continues with a slow process of unfreezing
and changing beliefs and attitudes. This minority is often at first perceived by the majority as traitorous,
and a long process of persuasion has to occur before psychological change encompasses the majority.
Social psychology has devoted much effort to studying this process of minority influence, but this is
beyond the scope of the present chapter (e.g., Moscovici et al.1985). It is important to recognize that for
reconciliation to be effective, it must always proceed from top-down and bottom-up simultaneously. While
psychological changes in leaders greatly influence many members of society, the evolvement of a mass
movement that embraces psychological change has an effect on the position of the leaders. In the long
process of reconciliation, both processes usually take place (Kaufman 2006). Leaders are of crucial
importance because they negotiate the initial peaceful resolution of the conflict and are in the position to
lead the reconciliation process, especially when they are committed to the process and have good and
trusting relations between them (e.g., Begin and Sadat in the Israeli–Egyptian case or Mandela and De
Clark in South Africa; see Bargal and Sivan 2004). A peaceful resolution of the immediate conflict is a
necessary condition for a succeeding reconciliation.

Moreover, the resolution has to be satisfactory to both parties in the conflict, who must perceive that it has
fulfilled their basic needs and addressed their fundamental aspirations (Pratto and Glasford in press;
Kelman 1999). However, it is important to note that especially in democratic societies there must be
significant mass support for conflict resolution and eventual reconciliation. In all societies, the success of
the reconciliation process depends on convincing the masses to change their psychological repertoire from
supporting the conflict to favoring the emergence of peaceful relations and reconciliation. This process
cannot occur as a result of commands and orders, nor can it merely be relayed in statements and speeches.
Rather it must be reflected in continuous formal acts that symbolically communicate to the society the
change in the relationship with the past rival. Thus, the reconciliation process requires policies that aim at
changing the psychological repertoire of society members. It depends on the activism and strength of those
who support it and requires the involvement of individuals, groups and organizations in persuading
hesitant and opposing group members of the importance of reconciliation (Bar-Tal 2000b; Gardner
Feldman 1999).

The mobilization of the masses for psychological change is also performed by middle-level leaders,
prominent figures in ethnic, religious, economic academic, intellectual and humanitarian circles (Lederach
1997). In this process, elites play a very important role in initiating and implementing policies of
reconciliation and reconstruction (Ackermann 1994). The elites include those individuals who hold
authoritative positions in powerful public and private organizations and influential movements. At the
grassroots level, local leaders, businessmen, community developers, local health officials and educators
can play an important role. But the persuasion process within a society is not enough. Of special
importance in promoting reconciliation are “people to people” activities that bring together “ordinary

27
society members” from both sides to meet and/or work together on various projects that all aim at
solidifying the reconciliation (Gawerc 2006).

A number of methods that promote and facilitate reconciliation have been proposed (Kelman 2004;
Kriesberg 2004). These acts must be institutionalized and widened to encompass many society members,
institutions and organizations (Kelman 1999; Norval 1999). Some of them can begin before formal
conflict resolution; others require reciprocation and can occur only after official relations have opened up.
Methods that can take place before signing the conflict agreement include:

• Using the mass media to transmit information to a wide public about the new peaceful goals, the past
rival group, one’s own group, about the developing relations and so on (Norval 1999).

• Non-governmental organizations spreading the message about the importance of constructing peaceful
relations, helping establish cooperative and friendly relations with the past adversary, or providing
economic assistance to the society members and thereby showing that peaceful relations have
important benefits (e.g., Aall 1996).

• Peace education provides pupils with knowledge that is in line with the principles of reconciliation
(for example, about the other group, about the course of the conflict, about future peaceful relations,
about the nature of peace, about conflict resolution, etc.; see Asmal et al. 1997; Bar-Tal et al. in press,
1993; Harris 1988; Reardon 1988).

• Publicizing meetings between representatives of both groups to legitimize the peace process and
personalize former rivals.

Methods that take place after formal conflict resolution include:

• Joint projects of different kinds that can foster links between members of the two groups at different
levels of society, such as elites and professionals, as well as grass roots (Ackermann 1994).

• Tourism to indicate that some psychological barriers to social relations have successfully been
removed and provide an opportunity to learn about the past rival’s readiness to form peaceful relations;
cultural exchanges provide the opportunity to learn about the past opponent in human cultural
perspectives.
• Writing a common history can shed new light on the part of the groups and provide a basis for the
eventual evolvement of new collective memory that is compatible with reconciliation (Willis 1965).

• Truth and reconciliation commissions deal with the past by revealing the truth to the people and to
serve as a mechanism of perpetuating justice (Asmal et al. 1997; Kaye 1997).

28
• Apology as a way of accepting responsibility for the misdeeds carried out during the conflict and to
appeal to the victim for forgiveness is an acknowledgment of the past injustices (Asmal et al. 1997;
Cohen 2004; Gardner Feldman 1999; Handl 1997; Norval 1999).

• Public trials of particular individuals charged for violation of human rights and crimes against
humanity may enhance a sense of justice that facilitates the reconciliation process.

• Payment of reparations may take place when one or both sides accept responsibility for the misdeeds
performed during the conflict and are willing to compensate the victims. This indicates an admission
of guilt and regret by the perpetrator, while the victims’ acceptance of the reparations signals a
readiness to forgive.

These different methods can involve different sectors and layers of the society. No single method is best;
what is required is a combination. The use of the particular methods depends on many different factors,
such as the nature of the conflict, the type of misdeeds perpetrated during it, the extent to which one side
or both sides were responsible for its outbreak and the misdeeds committed, the history of relations
between the groups, the culture of the groups involved, the availability of economic resources, the
involvement of the international community and so on. These acts must be institutionalized and widened
to encompass many society members, institutions and organizations in order to eventually evolve into a
culture of peace.

Conflict:
Conflict is never a static phenomenon. It is expressive, dynamic, and dialectical in nature. Relationally
based, conflict is born in the world of human meaning and perception. It is constantly changed by ongoing
human interaction, and it continuously changes the very people who give it life and the social environment
in which it is born, evolves, and perhaps ends. Those who study social conflict from a scientific point of
view and those who wish to find practical ways of dealing with it more constructively are interested in the
characteristics of conflict and the patterns that it follows. It is through this exploration that researchers
have identified the life cycle or progression of conflict

Identity: In Ethnic Conflict

Ethnic identity connects individuals through perceived common past experiences and expectations of
shared future ones. It entails a sense of common fate, including expectations of common treatment, joint
fears of survival/extinction, and beliefs about group worth, dignity, and recognition. Identity involves
group judgements and judgments about groups and their motives. For example, Horowitz (1985. pp.)
discusses the power of assigning the labels "backward" and "advanced" to ethnic groups in colonial and
post-colonial settings, and the claims of entitlement that groups may make as a consequence of such a
designation.

29
Social identity development. Social identity begins to develop at the earliest stages of the life cycle, and
its intensity is crucial to explaining why people are willing to make the greatest personal sacrifices in its
name (Stern, 1995). People with the same identity share targets or externalization common enemies which
reinforces a shared view of a world filled with enemies and allies (Volkan, 1988). High emotional salience
is attached to group differences that are emphasized through symbolic and ritual behaviors binding
individuals to their own groups. As Volkan (1990) writes:

The psychoanalytic view indicates that ethnicity or nationality originals much as other emotional
phenomena do in clans or tribes. The sense of self is intertwined at a primitive level with the identity of
the group. Membership in these groups is not like that in a club or professional organization, since it is
aligned with raw and primitive affects pertaining to one's sense of self and others and to their
externalization and projection.

Humans clearly have an evolved predisposition for sociality and well-developed capacity to form cohesive
social groups (Howell & Willis, 1989). and ingroup identity provides the basis for a fundamental paradox
of human existence. It facilitates both physical and emotional survival within groups: at the same time,
strong ingroup solidarity can promote outgroup competition and conflict, although we are unclear about
exactly how the two dynamics are related (LcVine & Campbell, 1972).

Modern psychoanalytic writing is particularly helpful for understanding identity development and the
relationship between individual and ethnic identity (Ross, 1995). Unlike older, drive-based theories of
psychodynamic functioning, contemporary object relations theory, with its emphasis on linking a person's
inner and outer worlds, focuses on the social development of attachment (Bowlby, 1969, Greenberg &
Mitchell, 1983). This work on early social relationships as providing a template for ones that develop later
in life, and it is especially concerned with the parts of the outer world brought inside and with inner parts
projected outward (Stern, 1985: Volkan, 1988). Normal development, facilitated by what Winnicott
(1965) calls the good enough mother, encourages both the attachment of the individual to others and
separation-individuation as a person builds a sense of self connected to a progressively wider circle of
attachment (Mahler, Pine, & Bergman, 1975)

Winnicott (1958) describes the importance of transitional objects—teddy bears, soft towels, and other
treasured objects that link a child's inner and outer worlds and are infused with high emotional
significance. It is easy to extend this linkage process to social and cultural objects—significant symbols
and rituals that are first encountered in safe, within-group contexts (often in childhood), revisited in
adolescence when peer groups and wider social attachments are especially salient emotionally, and
embedded in daily practices and their culturally specific sights, smells, and sounds.

Understanding ethnic identity is also complicated by the fact that human groups range widely in form and
content, and that any one person has multiple identities whose salience varies across situations. Identity

30
involves the capacity to distinguish in specific settings between people who are like oneself and those who
are different, and depending on the context the same people may be variously classified as alike or
different. To analyze identity, we need to examine what it is that people believe they have in common,
and to consider how a sense of shared fate develops and is reinforced within a group.

Psychocultural interpretations are critical to this dynamic. Several factors shape the interpretive process.
One is the human predisposition to make sense of experience. This capacity is at the core of our ability to
learn and to act upon our environment. Yet the same factors that push actors to make sense of a situation
also lead to cognitive and perceptual distortion in identity conflicts, because the desire for certainty often
is greater than the capacity for accuracy. Not only are disputants likely to make systematic errors in the
"facts" underlying interpretations, but homogeneous social settings and the presence of cultural amplifiers
reinforce these distortions (Mack, 1983). What is most crucial, however, about subjective inter
permutations of a conflict is the compelling, coherent account they offer to the parties in linking discrete
events to general understanding. Central to such interpretation is the attribution of motives to parties (Jones
& Nisbett, 1972: Pruitt & Rubin, 1985) Once identified, the existence of such motives seemingly makes
it easy to "predict" another's future actions and, through one's own behavior, to turn such predictions into
self-fulfilling prophecies.

A second factor that makes the interpretive process possible is the ambiguity and complexity of the
situation in most ethnic conflicts. Although participants in any dispute can is usually illusory (Roy, 1994).
Opposing parties operate from very different frames of reference, as a result, they don't agree on what a
conflict is about, when it started, or who they consider to be involved. External events can be interpreted
in a number of ways, as a result, groups turn to internal frameworks and perceptions, which then shape
subsequent behavior. This, of course, is what makes ethnic conflict so difficult to contain and manage.
Ambiguous events are easily selectively interpreted as confirming evidence for pre-existing beliefs.
Furthermore, because many disputes involved parties with a long history of conflict, older grievances can
easily be appended to newer ones as political conditions warrant. For all of these reasons, it is appropriate
to suggest that, rather than thinking about particular objective events that cause conflicts to escalate, we
ought to be thinking about the interpretations of such events that are associated with escalation and those
that are not often tell someone "just what the conflict is about this precision

A striking feature of many identity-based ethnic conflicts is the party’s emotional investment in what
outsiders may view as unimportant matters. The fact Is however, that any matter invested with emotional
significance is no longer trivial, and intransigent inter group disputes quickly become characterized by
perceived threats to group self-esteem and legitimation (Ross. 1995). The dynamic is one in which the
parties feeling threatened place identity issues at the core of their concerns (Northrup. 1989). Such
emotion-laden conflicts can be especially difficult to settle. When each side feels the same intense
emotions, it may be difficult to recognize what is in fact, shared. For example, although both Protest tents
and Catholics in Northern Ireland each see themselves as a threatened minority each has trouble
acknowledging the other side's view. One party's own emotional concern makes it very difficult to accept

31
another's account, especially when their own action may be the root cause of an adversary's feeling and
behavior.

Identity is linked to shared images of the world. Group members often go through common developmental
experiences, including shared events that are incorporated into one's own personal identity (Ross, 1995).
Anderson (1991) wrote of imagined communities, which link personal and collective identities. The
process of within-group identity formation overemphasizes what it is that group members actually share,
giving greater emotional weight to the common elements, reinforcing them with an ideology of linked
fate, and frequently over estimating within-group uniformity (Turner, 1988). There is also a shared, and
usually exaggerated, conception of the differences between one's group and outsiders. The strong and
opposing, identities involved in intense conflicts emphasize the homogeneity of each party, sometimes
using what are small objective differences to mark large social distinctions (Volkan, 1988). Outsiders then
can serve as objects for externalization, displacement, and projection of intense negative feelings while
dissenting perspectives present inside the group are denied.

Identities and interests as motives for action. In examining the role of Identity in ethnic conflict, it is
important to acknowledge that interests also drive conflict in general and ethnic conflict in particular
(Ross, 1993a). Interests and Identities are two imperatives that drive ethnic conflict, then each can provide
motives for political organization and action. At first glance, interests seem more straightforward motives,
are easy to articulate as political claims, and provide a basis for group (or individual) goals. Interests are
generally quite concrete, and given the pervasive use of economic metaphors in our culture, it would seem
reasonable to say that people are pursuing, or are motivated by their own interests. Indeed, public discourse
in most democracies legitimizes interest-based claims, such as "We are seeking more and better jobs for
our people." However, even when interests are presented as objective, they have important subjective
dimensions as well. For example, when groups make claims concerning such things as jobs, seats an
government boards, or positions in universities, they are also invoking implicit notions of justice derived
from an assessment of what they feel entitled to receive. Specific entitlement demands-- involving, for
example, high-level political positions or the public display of flags or street signs-are often "tests" to
gauge how a political system views a group, and any analysis that ignores the intense subjective elements
of such demands is going to be incomplete.

Identity is a more complicated basis for political claims. The members of a group, for example, may not
be fully aware of the group's identity concerns. Often operating at a subconscious level. perceived threats
and deeply rooted fears can be difficult to talk about or to specify. As a result, groups frequently assert
identity claims in strident and hard-to-hear ways, emphasizing firm positions, when in fact the deeper
underlying needs remain diffuse and implicit. When identity-based demands do become explicit, however,
their emotional meaning can cause them to be stated in all or nothing moralistic terms, which makes them
difficult to address through the give-and-take of everyday political life.

32
Interests and identities are often quite interconnected. The distinction between the two is analytic, but
people caught up in conflict intuitively understand their empirical linkage. For example, it is easy to see
how the achievement of certain interest goals. such as gaining a political office or improved job
opportunities, can address a group identity and recognition concerns at the same time. To the extent that
interest claims are tests of a group's acceptance as a legitimate political player, achievement of the interest
claims also addresses concerns about Identity However, there are times when a group may be ready to
drop or alter an interest claim if the identity needs can be met in another manner. Similarly, when identity-
based fears of exclusion diminish, group may all the kinds of interest claim they make. Understanding
intense ethnic conflict as involving both interests and Identities thus increases only our analytical
understanding but also our options for constructive conflict management Ross, 1993).

Conflict Management

Conflict management theorists see violent conflicts as an ineradicable consequence of differences of

values and interests within and between communities. The propensity to violence arises from existing
institutions and historical relationships, as well as from the established distribution of power. Resolving
such conflicts is viewed as unrealistic: the best that can be done is to manage and contain them, and
occasionally to reach a historic compromise in which violence may be laid aside and normal politics
resumed. Conflict management is the art of appropriate intervention to achieve political settlements,
particularly by those powerful actors having the power and resources to bring pressure on the conflicting
parties in order to induce them to settle. It is also the art of designing appropriate institutions to guide the
inevitable conflict into appropriate channels. In the words of Bloomfield and Reilly:

Conflict management is the positive and constructive handling of difference and divergence. Rather than
advocating methods for removing conflict, [it] addresses the more realistic question of managing conflict:
how to deal with it in a constructive way, how to bring opposing sides together in a cooperative process,
how to design a practical, achievable, cooperative system for the constructive management of difference
(Bloomfield and Reilly 1998, 18).

Wars produce the worst violations of human rights worldwide and are the greatest impediments to human
development. Most of the major armed conflicts since the Cold War have been internal clashes over
religion, national or ethnic identity, and/or access to natural resources or wealth. Conflict management
works to mitigate such conflicts and build sustainable peace. Conflict management refers to peace, and
looks for alternative channels for dialogue and negotiation. Conflict management helps warring parties
when traditional dispute management methods fail, filling the space between official diplomacy and
unofficial grassroots peace efforts. Some recent wars have been the bloodiest, most devastating of modern
times: 4 million people killed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2 million killed in Sudan, and
genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia-Herzegovina. In 2009, 14 major armed conflicts were active in 13

33
locations around the world. Over the past decade, the global number of active major armed conflicts has
declined overall, but the decline has been very uneven, with major drops in 2005 and 2007, and an increase
in 2009.

The end of the Cold War brought a new momentum to the study of conflict management. One of the main
reasons for this was the proliferation of violent conflicts in regions such as Eastern Europe. The level of
domestic ethnic conflicts, as well as of ethnic conflicts between communities and neighboring states,
attracted much interest among researchers.

Conflict management has become a necessity of the modern international system. Conflicts are monitored,
controlled, and prevented from growing into destructive proportions. Conflict control has become both a
diplomatic task and a branch of military strategy. This attitude may take even more radical form if
developments such as terrorism, extremism, and illegal trade in drugs and arms are not brought under firm
legal control. The international community has made significant efforts to find solutions to conflicts from
the past era associated with ideological struggle or national self-determination. It must now find ways to
deal with new conflicts as they appear. These have been adjusted in diplomatic practice and have become
a part of the international political sphere. They may be roughly labeled as "conflict management," which
includes the following:
• Conflict resolution, which looks for models and mechanisms for solving existing conflicts;
• Conflict control, which aims at controlling the state of conflicts, above all the level of violence; and
• Conflict prevention, which stresses the avoidance of conflicts in the future.
This idea of conflict management is strongly supported by practical results from the previous times in
international relations, including the following:

The end of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, their mutual efforts in strategic
arms reductions, joint activities in settling some regional conflicts, and confidence-building in Europe; the
end of colonization, success in the resolution of wars of national liberation, and the accomplishments of
nation-building efforts; the end of the North-South confrontation between the rich nations of the West and
the poorer developing nations of the South, and the evolution of the World Trade Organization, one of the
strongest elements of the current international system; the end of the oil crisis of 1974, which followed a
major conflict of interests between oil consumers and the producers/exporters of oil, and the development
of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a reliable vehicle for conflict resolution
through market regulation. These accomplishments have proved the validity of conflict management as a
realistic goal for policy makers.

Conflict Resolution
Human beings engage in conflict, aggression, warfare, violence seemingly equate with the human
condition. Equally, humans have sought, as long as there has been conflict, to handle conflict effectively,

34
by containing or reducing its negative consequences. Treaties, ceasefires, agreements, and handshakes are
all symbols of human endeavors to reduce the negative consequences work better than others.

Why is it that in one instance a handshake and an apology may end weeks of enmity, whereas in another
instance a handshake or apologies do absolutely nothing? The study of conflict resolution seeks to come
to grips with explaining why people engage in conflict, and identify ways in which conflict may be
resolved?

Conflict resolution, as a defined specialist field, has come of age in the post-Cold War era. It has also
come face to face with fundamental new challenges. It started in 1950s and 1960s, at the height of the
Cold War, when the development of nuclear weapons and the conflict between the superpowers seemed
to threaten human survival (Hill, 1981:109-138).

Conflict resolution is now recognized as a legitimate, indeed important topic of academic study.
Justifications for the study of conflict resolution appears daily rising levels of domestic violence in the
post war era, the birth and growth of nuclear stockpiles, and the increasing level of dissatisfaction with
the status quo at the national and international level. Because of the bad ramifications and repercussions
of these nuclear weapons which had been used against humanity many times be it, First World War (1914-
1918) or Second World War (1939-1945). These concerns serve to galvanize attention on resolving
conflict by peaceful means without going to war. Even before these modern daily ills, however, humanity
has been locked into patterned ways of dealing with conflict. The real world has constraints imposed by
human nature, by history, and by deeply ingrained patterns of thought.

Conflict resolution, for some, appears to offer alternative to what seems an otherwise dangerous and
threatening world. Much of its focus has been on techniques or methods by which conflict may be handled.
The focus has been largely upon individual actors, or a small collection of actors, working to resolve
interpersonal, organizational or community conflict. International conflict resolution has also been an area
of keen focus, but has been left largely to the diplomats and practitioners of United Nations conflict does
not occur within vacuum.

Conflict resolution texts emphasize the imaginative, creative generation of alternatives, empowerment of
the weak, and the search for non-violent change. Conflict resolution has been defined as a situation:
“Where the conflicting parties enter into an agreement that solves their central incompatibilities, accept
each other’s continued existence as parties, and cease all violent action against each other” (Wallensteen,
2002:8). This means, of course, that conflict resolution is something that necessarily comes after conflict.
It also means that we first need to have concepts and tools for the analysis of conflict. This is what conflict
theory is all about.

Conflict resolution is a broad term referring to a range of forms of resolving disagreements which may be
manifested at different levels of society. Research into conflict resolution fits into our definition of peace

35
psychology in that it seeks to elucidate psychological processes involved in the prevention and mitigation
of destructive conflict. The practice of conflict resolution aims to utilize knowledge of psychological
processes to maximize the positive potential inherent in a conflict and to prevent its destructive
consequences.

Conflict resolution refers to all process-oriented activities that aim to address the underlying causes of
direct, cultural, and structural violence. Structural violence defines the social, political, and economic
structure of a conflict situation when unequal power, domination, and dependency are perpetuated; while
cultural violence refers to the social and cultural legitimization of direct and structural violence.

Conflict resolution provides techniques to deal with dispenses in a manner which is nonviolent, avoids
dominance or oppression by one party over the other, and, rather than exploiting one party, aims to meet
the human needs of all. In relation to the positive mission of peace psychology (Christie, 1997), conflict
resolution can be seen as a set of strategies which can be used to foster the satisfaction of human needs
for security, identity, self-determination and quality of life for all people involved in a conflict. An
important feature of conflict resolution within the arena of peace psychology is that it bridges theory and
practice, moving from a theoretical understanding of psychological processes into practical strategies for
translating ideals into realities in a wide number of arenas.

Conflict resolution theorists, in contrast, reject this power political view of conflict, arguing instead that
in communal and identity conflicts, people cannot compromise on their fundamental needs. However,
they argue that it is possible to transcend conflicts if parties can be helped to explore, analyze, question
and reframe their positions and interests. Conflict resolution therefore emphasizes intervention by skilled
but powerless third-parties working unofficially with the parties to foster new thinking and new
relationships. They seek to explore what the roots of the conflict really are and to identify creative
solutions that the parties may have missed in their commitment to entrenched positions. Conflict resolution
is about how parties can move from zero sum, destructive patterns of conflict to positive-sum constructive
outcomes. The aim is to develop „processes of conflict resolution that appear to be acceptable to parties
in dispute, and effective in resolving conflict “(Azar and Burton 1986).

Practices of Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution is a broad term referring to a range of forms of resolving disagreements which may be
manifested at different levels of society. Research into conflict resolution fits into our definition of peace
psychology in that it seeks to elucidate psychological processes involved in the prevention and mitigation
of destructive conflict. The practice of conflict resolution aims to utilize knowledge of psychological
processes to maximize the positive potential inherent in a conflict and to prevent its destructive
consequences.

36
Conflict resolution provides techniques to deal with disputes in a manner which is nonviolent, avoids
dominance or oppression by one party over the other, and, rather than exploiting one party, aims to meet
the human needs of all. In relation to the positive mission of peace psychology (Christie, 1997), conflict
resolution can be seen as a set of strategies which can be used to foster the satisfaction of human needs
for security, identity, self-determination and quality of life for all people involved in a conflict. An
important feature of conflict resolution within the arena of peace psychology is that it bridges theory and
practice, moving from a theoretical understanding of psychological processes into practical strategies for
translating ideals into realities in a wide number of arenas. Furthermore, it does this in situations which
are fraught with difficulty and often seem to tax our commitment to peace values.

In conflict resolution, the aim is not to avoid conflict but rather to deal with it in a way which minimizes
the negative impact and maximizes the positive potential inherent in conflict within the framework of the
values of peace. That is, both the solutions which are sought, and the means by which they are sought, are
judged against the criteria of being against violence, dominance, oppression, and exploitation, and for the
satisfaction of human needs for security, identity, self-determination and quality of life for all people

The course of any conflict, be it between individuals, groups, or nations, will be shaped by the social
context in which it takes place. From an ecological perspective, conflict can be analyzed at a number of
different levels, which, though differing in complexity, can have underlying similarities. “Whether we are
dealing with interpersonal, community, ethnic [or] international relations, we are dealing with the same
ontological needs of people, requiring the same processes of conflict resolution” (Burton, 1991).
Systematic research on conflict and its resolution has occurred at all levels but most has focused on
organizational settings (especially relating to industrial relations), international conflicts, and more
recently interpersonal conflicts and disputes (e.g., neighborhood disputes, marital conflict). As research
develops in these separate streams, further studies will be needed to check the assumption of the invariance
of processes across fields.

Four basic principles underlie most approaches to conflict resolution: (1) conflict resolution is a
cooperative endeavor, (2) the solutions sought are integrative ones, (3) the foundation is an understanding
of all parties’ interests, and (4) both the process and its outcome are nonviolent.
• Cooperation: A key feature of conflict resolution is the focus on cooperation rather than competition.
The parties see the problem facing them as one on which they can collaborate to find a solution that suits
them both. In our scenario, it is apparent that to make their living arrangements work, the students will
need to cooperate. If in his anger Mark uses hostile strategies, he may well evoke hostility from the others.
• Follett (1940) first referred to the search for integrative solutions, that is, solutions which meet the
interests and needs of all parties, by offering a personal anecdote. She and another woman disagreed about
whether to open or close a window. The compromise solution, that is, having it half open, would satisfy
neither of them. Eventually they discovered that one wanted the window open to increase the fresh air,
while the other wanted it closed to prevent a draught, which led to the cooperative, integrative or “win-
win” solution of opening a window in an adjoining room. This notion was later elaborated as integrative

37
bargaining by Walton and McKersie (1965)—the process by which parties attempt to explore options to
increase the size of the joint gain without respect to the division of payoffs.

• An Interest-based Approach: In both rights-based and power-based methods, each party assumes that
they know what is the “best” or “winning” solution for them. The process of resolution revolves around
each party trying to impose its solution or position on the other party. However, these positions are only
one possible solution. Positional bargaining locks both parties into contemplation of only their opposing
positions, discourages any analysis of underlying issues, and discourages the emergence of more creative
solutions. The best solution that can be hoped for is a compromise between each party’s initial positions.
In contrast, conflict resolution approaches focus on the deeper issues or interests underlying the conflict,
pursuing a new and creative solution that is better than either of the parties’ initial positions. This is known
as an interest-based approach. The underlying interests behind a conflict can include needs, wants, fears
and concerns, and emerge through a process of “unpacking” the conflict and each party’s initial positions.

• Nonviolence: Although one commonly talks about “conflict resolution,” what is usually implicit is more
fully expressed as “nonviolent conflict resolution.” “Resolving” a conflict through the use of arms, for
example, is not considered a form of conflict resolution. The peace theorist Johan Galtung (1969) suggests
that violence is a structural phenomenon, a feature of social arrangements characterized by dominance,
oppression, exploitation, and exclusion. Recognizing the structural nature of violence, a major feature of
this volume, brings into focus the importance of attending to patterns of inequality such as gender, class,
and race. Processes which settle immediate problems but serve, in the longer term, to erode human rights,
may appear efficient but would not be considered conflict resolution.

Strategies for Conflict Resolution:

Avoiding: Avoiding is when people just ignore or withdraw from the conflict. They choose this method
when the discomfort of confrontation exceeds the potential reward of resolution of the conflict. While this
might seem easy to accommodate for the facilitator, people aren’t really contributing anything of value to
the conversation and may be withholding worthwhile ideas. When conflict is avoided, nothing is resolved.

Competing: Competing is used by people who go into a conflict planning to win. They’re assertive and
not cooperative. This method is characterized by the assumption that one side wins and everyone else
loses. It doesn’t allow room for diverse perspectives into a well-informed total picture. Competing might
work in sports or war, but it’s rarely a good strategy for group problem solving.

Accommodating: Accommodating is a strategy where one party gives in to the wishes or demands of
another. They’re being cooperative but not assertive. This may appear to be a gracious way to give in
when one figures out s/he has been wrong about an argument. It’s less helpful when one party
accommodates another merely to preserve harmony or to avoid disruption. Like avoidance, it can result
in unresolved issues.

38
Collaborating: Collaborating is the method used when people are both assertive and cooperative. A group
may learn to allow each participant to make a contribution with the possibility of co-creating a shared
solution that everyone can support.

Compromising: Another strategy is compromising, where participants are partially assertive and
cooperative. The concept is that everyone gives up a little bit of what they want, and no one gets everything
they want. The perception of the best outcome when working by compromise is that which “splits the
difference.” Compromise is perceived as being fair, even if no one is particularly happy with the final
outcome.

Limits of Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution is not necessarily identical with peace. There is considerable overlap, however, as most
notions of peace are based on the absence or ending of war. A conflict, we have just made clear, is not
resolved if it does not include an end to armed struggle. At the same time, it is not sufficient that it only
contains the ending of fighting. Conflict resolution is more than the limited definition of peace. It is more
than the absence of war. The parties are agreeing to respect each other and prepare for living together with
one another. However, there are broader understandings of what peace is, such as the presence of
cooperation, justice and integration. Conflict resolution may or may not include such larger values. It will
depend on the situation. The preferred definition does not, a priori, include such elements. The definition
is dependent on what the parties want or can agree to include. Conflict resolution may contain broader
aspects, it may not.

In the worst circumstances, peace agreement may negate widely held values. The accords studied here
have been concluded between parties with arms. They are militarily stronger than other parties in their
societies. Thus, there is a danger that the agreed form of conflict resolution will contain privileges for the
armed parties, at the expense of other interests in the society. There are
many examples of this, even where persons who have been responsible for a lot of destruction take up
government positions, thus becoming legal powerholders. Such developments create fear in parts of
society. From a conflict resolution perspective, it is necessary to warn against such arrangements. They
may contain the seeds of renewed conflict or initiate entirely new conflict dynamics. The deal, from the
population’s point of view, is that granting privileges will stop a war. The hope may be that these privileges
can be challenged by a stronger civil society once the war is over. The conditions of peace may require
new types of leadership, and thus, the hope may be borne out. A minimum conclusion is to ensure that the
peace agreement does not prevent such developments; a better position is that it actually encourages it.

A question that has gained importance is the issue of crimes committed during a war, as part of the fighting
or under the protection of the war. The international war crimes tribunal was set up in 1993 for the conflict
in former Yugoslavia, followed by a similar tribunal for Rwanda a year later. By the summer of 1998 a
fully-fledged war crimes court was created. By the end of 2000 the United States, Israel and Iran, three
holdouts, had signed the convention. This is a dramatic new development. After the Second World War

39
war crime tribunals were set up for the responsible actors in Germany and Japan. They were not permanent
institutions and war crimes were seldom pursued internationally in the following decades. The only
consistent effort pursued by some countries and some non-governmental organizations was to bring to
trial those involved in the Holocaust. The Cold War precluded an international consensus on the pursuit
of war crimes.

Thus, only after the Cold War could a shared understanding again develop on war crimes, necessary
procedures and punishments. Nevertheless, there are recent peace agreements which include different
forms of amnesty to leaders and decision-makers. By negotiators amnesty has been seen as necessary for
any agreement at all to be concluded. Leaders could, in other words, protect themselves from criminal
procedures, the opposing sides and the legitimate anger of their own populations. Developments during
the 1990s make such agreements increasingly unlikely. They are not easily accepted internationally. In
that sense, conflict resolution today has become more demanding than it was immediately after the Cold
War. The effects of this can be discussed. Some would argue that it threatens to prolong conflict, as parties
fearing to be brought to trial have little incentive to agree to anything which endangers their control. Others
argue that it deters parties from getting into war in the first place, as any war increases the likelihood of
war crimes committed to future court procedures. In the long run, it serves to prevent new wars.

Finally, we should also note that conflict resolution is not the same as complete disarmament. The
agreement may allow the parties to retain a certain arsenal. It is likely, however, that this will be lower
than what has been put to use in the war itself. The parties may, nevertheless, maintain that they need
special protection. Clearly, the higher the level of protection required and agreed, the more likely it is that
this creates renewed insecurity in a society. Thus, it is probable that peace agreements will only be durable
if they result in some disarmament, although complete disarmament may not be required. For the parties,
a low level of military expenditure is preferable to a high one. Ultimately, peace, but not necessarily
conflict resolution, will require that the armaments are very limited and only kept under responsible,
legitimate and
reliable authority.

There are also other aspects of peace. Conflict resolution finds itself at a bridge between a very narrow
concept of peace (no war) and a very broad one (justice). By leaving conflict resolution as a concept
defined by the parties, it may become difficult to compare one situation to another. However, the fact is
that there are increasingly established norms for the content of internationally acceptable peace
agreements. International law has set some standards for conflict resolution between states. The end of the
Cold War has also set signposts for the settlement of internal conflicts: principles of democracy, human
rights, criminal justice and economic cooperation are part of this. In this sense, an international
understanding of conflict resolution is developing. It contributes to pushing the concept further in the
direction of justice, not simply cessation of violence.

40
Conflict Prevention and Conflict Transformation

A major study by the Carnegie Commission on the Prevention of Deadly Conflict published in 1999
focused heavily on international actions and identified conflict prevention as including actions or policies
to:
• Prevent the emergence of violent conflict and identify non-violent means of resolving the tensions
• Stop ongoing conflicts from spreading
• Deter the re-emergence of violence
The report categories international approaches to prevention as-
Operational Prevention or Direct Prevention- measures to address immediate crises (e.g. sending high-
level diplomatic missions to mediate between parties, using economic tools such as sanctions,
inducements, or collecting weapons and demobilizing fighting units), and employing forceful measures
such as deploying peacekeepers to a region.

Structural Prevention or Root Cause Prevention- addressing root causes such as poverty, political
repression and uneven distribution of resources, which can, if left unattended, escalate into violence. Long-
term prevention includes efforts to reduce poverty and achieve broad-based economic growth. Preventive
strategies should also promote human rights, protect minority rights and institute political arrangements
in which all groups are represented (e.g. promoting democratic government so that opposing parties can
state their views, resolving differences through dialogue and cooperation or ensuring that legislation does
not discriminate against one sector of society).

Conflict transformation theorists argue that contemporary conflicts require more than the reframing of
positions and the identification of win-win outcomes. The very structure of parties and relationships may
be embedded in a pattern of conflictual relationships that extend beyond the particular site of conflict.
Conflict transformation is therefore a process of engaging with and
transforming the relationships, interests, discourses and, if necessary, the very constitution of society that
supports the continuation of violent conflict. Constructive conflict is seen as a vital agent or catalyst for
change. People within the conflict parties, within the society or region affected, and outsiders with relevant
human and material resources all have complementary roles to play in the long-term process of
peacebuilding. This suggests a comprehensive and wide-ranging approach, emphasizing support for
groups within the society in conflict rather than for the mediation of outsiders. It also recognizes that
conflicts are transformed gradually, through a series of smaller or larger changes as well as specific steps
by means of which a variety of actors may play important roles. In the words of Lederach:

Conflict transformation must actively envision, include, respect, and promote the human and cultural
resources from within a given setting. This involves a new set of lenses through which we do not primarily
‚see ‘the setting and the people in it as the ‚problem ‘and the outsider as the answer ‘. Rather, we
understand the long-term goal of transformation as validating and building on people and resources within
the setting (Lederach 1995).

41
Conflict transformation is about transforming the way that societies deal with conflict, moving them from
violent to non-violent means. Its goals are to build just, sustainable societies that resolve differences non-
violently. To achieve this, it must address both the direct and structural causes of violent conflict. It
assumes that conflict is an inevitable aspect of social change. At the same time, it assumes that the way
we deal with the conflict need not be violent and that the reason violent conflict emerges or escalates is
because parties do not have agreed mechanisms for resolving conflict non-violently.

Conflict transformation initiatives that aim to transform conflicts can take many forms. Each conflict
transformation initiative will, implicitly or explicitly, theory of how it is going to bring about a
change in the conflict. Which someone chooses to base their initiative on depends upon their analysis of
the conflict. There are two key dimensions to consider when choosing a theory of change:
1. The type of change desired
2. The type of actor involved

Lederach (1997) suggests that the types of change can be broken down into four categories:
1. Personal change (individual attitudes, behaviours, identity and perceptions)
2. Relationship change (changes in communication patterns, interpersonal and inter cooperation,
decision processes, conflict management mechanisms)
3. Cultural change (conflict is viewed as changes in views (or not) of traditional conflict resolution
mechanisms.)
4. Structural change (inequality, racial, religious, or ethnic Discrimination, patterns (access, inclusion)

He divides actors into three types (or levels): Top Leadership (Military/political/religious leaders with
high visibility), middle range leadership (leaders respected in particular sectors, e.g., academic or NGO)
and grassroots leadership (local and community-level leaders).

Breaking down things in a similar way, the Reflecting on Peace Practice (RPP) project addresses two key
dimensions of the type of change and the type of actor with a simple matrix which situates initiatives
according to two considerations: (i) whether they work at the level of "key people" (focusing on a limited
number of influential) or "more people" (targeting as many people as possible), and (ii) if they are working
at the individual/personal or the socio-political level. Building on this framework, findings from the RPP
project suggest that while an initiative may bring about change at the personal level, this change also needs
to be transferred to the socio-political level needs to be transferred to the socio-political level in order to
contribute to peace "writ large", i.e. peace at a societal level. Similarly, while an initiative may target key
people, if the change in these key people is to contribute to peace "writ large” it must somehow transfer
into change amongst many people (Anderson and Olson, 2003).

Methods used in Conflict Transformation

Once the desired change and the type of actor involved are clear, the means or method of intervention
must be chosen. It is possible to adopt many different approaches to conflict Transformation.

42
1. Dialogue
Dialogue processes are about bringing different actors together to discuss and exchange in order to build
mutual understanding and trust. Practical cases from Yemen and Morocco highlight the challenges
involved as well as a number of key points to take into consideration when entering into such processes.

Dialogue is a term that can be interpreted in many different ways. It's a process which consists of a series
of meetings between two or more actors in conflict, with the intention of exchanging perceptions and
building understanding and trust. It does not primarily aim at decisions and implementable action. It is
rather a form of conversation that seeks to inform but not to persuade or resolve. In this way it is different
from negotiation and meditation. Dialogue processes are often supported by a facilitator, who is in contact
with both sides.

Dialogue processes aim to break down stereotypes and humanize the "other side" by creating a willingness
and ability to listen, and an openness to new ideas. By fostering respect for the other's views, they try to
create deeper understanding between the parties of the needs and interests of the other side and to move
the parties towards a different kind of communication.

Case Study: YEMEN

Inspired by events in North Africa, popular protests against the government began in Yemen in early 2011.
Eleven months later, following increasing local and international pressure, President Saleh signed the Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC) initiative in November 2011, agreeing to step down and hand over power.
Since then Yemen has been going through a period of political transition. Outside powers are playing
although competing regional and international agendas (Iranian, Saudi, American and European are
complicating things. A UN-backed implementation document has set the agenda for the management of
the transition things, it calls for a National Dial Conference to review and revise the constitution before
new elections in February 2014. A Preparatory Committee on National Dialogue has been preparing the
ground for this National Dialogue Conference which is due to begin in February 2013 dialogue faces many
challenges.

2. Mediation
Creating safe social spaces where parties can come together to discuss and develop practical joint projects
for addressing aspects of the conflict is an approach of particular relevance to conflicts where parties hold
different worldviews. This approach was applied with some success to the conflict in Tajikistan between
secular and Islamist actors.

The notion of a mediation space does not conceive of mediation in the classical sense of negotiations
supported by an acceptable third party. Rather it is a process involving the creation of social spaces
between divided groups, as opposed to a process lodged in the work of an individual or small team
(Lederach, 2002). It can be understood as the interaction between two (or more) discourses as they
confront each other and seek to coordinate their actions in a nonviolent way.

43
The concept of “diapraxis” complements the mediation space approach. Diapraxis is process whereby
joint action between conflict actors is made a key goal of a dialogue or negotiation process, rather than
only a dialogue aiming at understanding the other side, or talking for the sake of talking (Bitter, 2011).

3. Culturally -balanced Co-mediation

In conflicts where there are significant cultural differences between the parties, a mixed mediation team
made up of mediators who are culturally-close to the parties can help to build confidence and avoid
misunderstandings. Such an approach, complemented by the addition of cultural advisors for the conflict
parties, was used to mediate tensions over the Danish Cartoons crisis of 2005-6.

Conflict transformation methods can be unilateral (involving one actor), bilateral (involving two actors,
e.g. dialogue or negotiations) or multilateral efforts (involving multiple actors, often dialogue or
negotiation processes with third-party assistance). Mediation can be defined as the support of negotiations
by an acceptable third party. Co-mediation is mediation carried out by two or more mediators that
cooperate with each other. The classical co-mediation situation involves a chief mediator who works with
a supporting team. The chief mediator makes the key strategic decisions and the team members'
contributions are usually related to their expertise on a particular topic.

Culturally-balanced co-mediation is when members of the co-mediation team come from culturally,
ethnically or religiously different backgrounds and these are relevant to the conflict they are mediating.
This model has unique advantages in inter-community conflict, especially in cases where it is hard to find
a single mediator trusted by all sides. By having a co-mediation team representing the different cultural
or religious backgrounds of the actors in question, impartiality is gained at the level of the team, rather
than at the level of the individual mediator.

At the same time culturally-balanced co mediation brings its own challenges. There is a risk that the
mediators' lack of neutrality (their closeness to one side) may impact their impartiality (their ability to
treat all sides equally).13 Their closeness to the conflict may make it hard for them to be sufficiently
detached to be effective and being part of a co-mediation team may not be enough to balance this out.
There is also a danger that the selected cultural backgrounds of the mediator(s) may not be relevant to the
conflict. Finally, in all co-mediation, competition between the mediators and confusion over their roles
can arise. This can be best avoided by ensuring that there is clarity from the outset between the different
mediators regarding role division.

4. Local Mediators
Local mediators can be defined as mediators who share the same geographical origins as the parties or
mediators who have a stake in the conflict. More specifically they are usually characterized by their in-
depth knowledge of the situation as well as close relationships to the parties to the conflict. While this
closeness is an advantage it can also be a disadvantage, leaving them open to criticisms of partiality.

44
5. Ombudsperson
An ombudsperson is a person with a formal institutional role to act as a trusted intermediary and honest
broker between individual citizens and the state (as represented by its various institutions and agencies).
Ombudspersons act as defenders of peoples' rights as defined in domestic, constitutional or human rights
law. They work towards fair and equitable solutions to protect citizens against a powerful state
administration while also taking into account the rightful interests of the state.

The term ombudsperson or ombudsman is translated in various ways in different countries which reflect
the slightly different nuances or emphases given to the role depending on the context.

● Defensor del Pueblo (Spain and Latin America)

● Difensore Civico (Italy)
● Commissioner for Human Rights (Eastern Europe and CIS countries)
● Police Commissioner (United Kingdom)
● Bürgerbeauftragter (Germany and Switzerland).
● Médiateur de la République (France).

In Switzerland ombudspersons are elected by the regional parliaments. They are an instrument of the
parliament to keep a check on the executive and the public administration. Other such instruments include
the Control Council of the Parliament, the Financial Council of the Parliament, the Independent Financial
Audit Office and the Special Investigation Council of the Parliament. Since they are regularly elected by
parliament, ombudspersons enjoy a high degree of legitimacy and independence from the executive.

Ombudspersons are usually mandated to carry out a number of activities including receiving and
investigating complaints, carrying out investigations upon their own initiative, mitigating conflicts,
protecting the constitutional and human rights individuals, intervening with the administration (including
security structures within the jurisdiction), protecting the administration against unfounded complaints,
giving legal advice, issuing recommendations, and reporting to the parliament. In some cases the
ombudsperson has a very robust mandate and can even take cases or parliamentary legislation to the
constitutional or supreme court.

6. Early warning and rapid Response Mechanism

Early warning often takes the form of a network of actors jointly designing and implementing conflict
prevention strategies. Monitoring helps ascertain whether and when violent conflicts can be expected to
occur, with the objective of preventing this from happening by means of a "rapid response". The decision
on what form of response is most appropriate will depend on

45
References

· Anderson, R. (2004). A Definition of Peace. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology,
10(2), 101–116

· Christie, D. J., Wagner, R. V., & Winter, D. A. (Eds.). (2001). Peace, Conflict, and Violence:
Peace Psychology for the 21st Century. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

· Harbottle, Michael. (1978). Peace‐keeping, peace‐making, peace‐building: A multi‐professional

experience in non‐violent action. Social Dynamics-a Journal of The Centre for African Studies
University of Cape Town - SOC DYNAMICS. 4. 40-51. 10.1080/02533957808458212.

· Miletic, Tania. (2012). A Peace-building Paradigm for Peace Psychology. 10.1007/978-1-4614-

1403-2_17.

· Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by peaceful means. Peace and conflict, development and civilization.
London: Sage Publications.

· Rivera, J. D. (2008). Handbook on Building Cultures of Peace.

· Sapio, Antonella & Zamperini, Adriano. (2007). Peace psychology.

10.4324/9780203089163.ch17.

· Wani, Hilal. (2013). Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation: Some Reflections.

· Webel, C., & Galtung, J. (2007). Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies. Routledge: London and
New York

· Yılmaz, Muzaffer Ercan, (2006) Third-Party Intervention in International Conflicts: Peacekeeping

and Peacemaking in the Post-Cold War Era, 3(11) Christie, D. J. (2012). The Encyclopedia of
Peace Psychology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

46