Peace Building Resource Pack

Written & Compiled by:

Carl S. Stauffer for the:

Centre for the Study of Violence & Reconciliation (CSVR)

Volume I: Peace Ecosystems

Volume I

2

Dear Facilitator, This is Volume I in a three part series entitled: “A Peace Building Resource Pack”. The purpose of Volume I is to provide you as the facilitator with background information and exercises that explain peace building as an Integrated Framework. Volume II is the Participant’s Manual, which unpacks the roles and competencies necessary for effective conflict intervention practice. This Volume is to be used by yourself and the participants as your reference and guide in the training process. Volume III is a compilation of exercises, role-plays, and simulations, a Handbook of Training Tools that should be used as part of the learning experience. These exercises furnish the facilitator with instruments targeted to successfully interface with a broad range of learning styles. We hope you find these manuals creative, helpful, and inspiring in your facilitation and training endeavours. Sincerely, Carl S Stauffer, On behalf of Centre for the Study of Violence & Reconciliation

3

Introduction to Volume I: Volume I is divided into three sections. Section I supplies the facilitator with the conceptual background that defines and describes a Peace Ecosystem. Section I also highlights for you a number of key elements and processes that are characteristic of peace ecosystems. As facilitator, familiarise yourself with this material by reading through these various parts, and choose those segments which you feel would be most helpful for the participant group you are working with. The use of all the material in Section I could become cumbersome and may overwhelm a learning group. We therefore suggest that you carefully select and make use of the key points that are most applicable in your setting. Our primary aim in Section I is to utilise the peace ecosystem analogy to draw attention to and explore with participants the four key concepts of Interdependency, Complexity, Movement/Flow & the Multi-track nature of peace system interventions. Section II furnishes the facilitator with charts, diagrams and exercises that serve as the Hardware for explaining and exploring the development of peace ecosystems with participants. Section III provides the facilitator with Supplemental Reading that can serve to enrich the facilitator’s understanding and grasp of peace systems and appropriate conflict intervention responses.

4

Table of Contents: Page Section I: Ecosystem Analogy………….….….5

• 6 Elements of Peace Ecosystems………………….……..5 • 4 Living Processes within Ecosystems……………..……7 • Peace Ecosystem Schematic……….……………………..8 • 6 Forces that Impact Peace Ecosystems………………..9 • 3 Change Factors in Peace Ecosystems…….………….10 • Added Discussion Points..…………………. ….………...11 • Limits of the Ecosystem Analogy……..……….………...12 Section II: Intervention Hardware…….……13

• Multi-track Peace Processes Map………..……….…..….13 • CSVR Peace Work Flowchart……………………………14 • Conflict Intervention Roles Chart……….………………15 • Facilitator’s Peace System Exercises (1-3)………………16

Section III: Supplemental Readings………..22

• The History of Human Approaches to Conflict.………..22 • Evolution of the Peace and Conflict Transformation

Field……………………………………………………….23 • Dimensions of Conflict………………………….. ………25 • From Issue to Systems–The‘Nested Paradigm’.. ………26 • Mapping Conflict: Lenses for Analysis…………………28 • Discovering Peace: A 5-Step Process for Transforming

Conflict in our Lives & in the World………………………………….…………30

5

Section I: Ecosystem Analogy

“But whether large or small, simple or complex, no organism lives alone. Our survival and well-being depend on ecological relationships throughout the world.”

(The World Book Encyclopaedia, 1996)

In this first section of the manual we will use the analogy of a Peace Ecosystem. Our goal in doing this is to surface and highlight four primary characteristics of peace interventions. These pivotal qualities are: Interdependence, Complexity, Movement and a Multi-Level approach to the transformation of conflicts. The field of conflict transformation has long sought for analogies that describe the multi-dimensional work that is required for sustained peace building. Often the field has turned to technology and referred to manmade instruments for parallels and inference. However, such analogies frequently feel mechanical, and rigid when applied to human behaviour. Preference may well be given to sourcing the natural world for symbols and parallels. The natural world offers a myriad of Divine-breathed, living and flowing systems. These beckon us to research, understanding and insight in the drawing of comparisons. The mutuality inherent in our own environmental ‘ecosystem’ is one such example that can serve as an effective peace system metaphor.

• 6 Elements of Peace Ecosystems: An ecosystem is a delicate, complex and multi-layered system. It’s workings hinge on six intricately interconnected and critical elements, without which the ecosystem cannot sustain itself. These elements serve as the focal points of exchange within the system. The Sun: The solar system is the source of

ENERGY in the ecosystem. This energy could be compared to the spiritual dynamic in peace building – the intricate role of the Divine as a source of life and the giver of genuine peace. Regardless of whether one is a religious or faith-based practitioner, to deny the spiritual element within peace building is to ignore an essential part of its true essence.

The Rain: The rain that comes from the cloud formations is a source of CLEANSING in the ecosystem.

This cleansing could be compared to the critical role of trauma healing from past atrocities and human rights violations for those affected by war and violence. This healing journey is a process of cleansing, empowerment, and

6

reconnection with the social fabric. It must be embarked on both on the individual as well as collective levels in order for peace building efforts to be sustained.

The Trees & Green Plant Life:

Green plant life is the source of HEALTH & VITALITY – the oxygen & food of the ecosystem.

This could be compared to the many vibrant initiatives around conflict prevention and intervention that are being carried out by many people, groups and structures working toward peace in formal and informal sectors. This could include a broad spectrum of endeavours from the UN Early Warning Systems Initiative to diplomatic and civil society efforts aimed at transforming conflicts in constructive ways.

The De-composers

The decomposers are the source of REGENERATION in the ecosystem. Decomposers refer to the bacteria and fungi that breakdown dead animals and plants into simple nutrients that also feed the system.

These action-oriented change agents (decomposers) can be compared to non-violent movements for social change. Through such change constituencies, histories of violence and revenge and institutions of oppression and death can be transformed into symbols of remembrance and structures of life and reconciliation. Decomposers are the catalysts for the transmission & metamorphosis of active generational peace.

The Soil: The soil serves as the source of NUTRITION for the ecosystem. Soil carries Abiotic Substances which contain the nutrients, phosphorus and water necessary for plant life to flourish.

Here we can make application to the attitudes, world-views and strategies that reinforce genuine peace. Those cultural, religious and social values that make peace building and conflict transformation possible and even meaningful. Pivotal to this process is the formation of just structures in society. A culture of Human Rights and Responsibilities and Restorative Justice practice are two examples of balanced and nutrient-rich ‘soils’ essential for peace.

7

The Rivers & Streams:

These waterways are an essential source of SUSTENANCE for the long life of an ecosystem.

The river or stream can be compared to reconciliation as a social change process. Like a river – genuine reconciliation has a life force and power of its own, which no one person or institution can control. As a river is bounded by banks on either side, so it is with reconciliation – it needs to be guided and channelled in order for it to move / flow in a direction that provides nourishment & healing. IF it is mishandled it can become a destructive, damaging force (e.g. when a river overflows and floods surrounding land.) Peace can only be long lasting if intentional efforts are embarked on in post-war societies to rebuild, reconstruct and reconfigure their existence as human beings. This core element precludes any short-cuts to reconciliation

• 4 Living Processes within Ecosystems The ecosystem holds a self-contained and self-sustained cycle of life in balance. It is characterised by the following critical processes:

! The flow of energy & nutrients – The ecosystem is constantly replenishing itself with the energy and nutrients necessary for it to stay alive.It refuses to lie dormant or become stagnant. Should it cease its’ flow of renewal, it would surely die.

! The cycling of materials – The ecosystem is a great recycling organism in that it is in perpetual motion. This movement is the driving force behind change and the metamorphosis of death and decay into life and vitality.

! The tensions of imbalance – Being a fragile system, which is highly interdependent, the ecosystem teeters on the brink of imbalance almost all the time. This tension poses both a risk / danger (a challenge to the system’s survival) as well as a healthy opportunity (that keeps the system alert and alive).

! Habitat diversity – The variety within each living layer is vital as each player / actor in the ecosystem has its own specific niche in the whole. If even just one of these essential pieces to the ecosystem is removed or eliminated, the whole system is forced into a state of imbalance and possible collapse. In the natural world, life on our planet earth as we know it is in fact dependent on whole ecosystems. If these systems are damaged, a backlash is unleashed which releases disastrous effects. As with biological ecosystems, so it is with human interconnectedness. We should find ways to systematise ‘just-peace’ and build ‘human ecosystems’ that promote peace-full relationships.

8

• Peace Ecosystem Schematic

9

• 6 Forces that Impact Peace Ecosystems There are at least six major external natural forces that destructively impact (bringing imbalance or complete breakdown) ecosystems. These natural forces have very concrete and practical application to the negative consequences of violence and war that disrupt and break apart peace building initiatives. These are: ! Food Supply – Drought, hunger and malnutrition all play a role in causing and

sustaining violence and war. Statistics indicate that the majority of wars being waged around the globe are in areas of dire poverty and resource depletion. Many civil wars have been sustained and civilian populations traumatised through the use of force and violence in the garnering of food supplies for the soldiers on either side. Additionally, even where there are strong humanitarian aid efforts among refugees and displaced persons, this very aid is often utilised as a pawn to feed the armies of those promoting violent causes. The hijacking or delay of humanitarian food distribution is used as a way to further terrorise, debilitate or control the civilian populations that are trapped in the middle of a vicious war.

! Climate – Linked to the above-mentioned force are natural or environmental

disasters that come as a result of war and modern weaponry. These forces can be as obvious as the dropping of an atomic bomb such as happened in WWII or the left over land mines that continue to plague many countries, maiming and killing a productive workforce as well as holding large portions of arable land hostage. Even less obvious or researched are the affects of “agent orange” chemicals used in Vietnam to kill forest vegetation or the aftermath of environmental damage to soil and water in Kosovo after the 58 days of US & Allied forces bombings in 1998. It is believed that in Kosovo the largest concentration of bombs were dropped on the smallest geographic area in history. The aftermath of this type of disaster is exponential and will certainly be visited upon generations to come.

! Disease – Coupled with environmental disasters, the health hazards and disease

epidemics that have accompanied war have been growing in severity and scope. With 70 % of the casualties of war being civilian in the wars of this century, the numbers of refugees and displaced persons the world over is staggering. With this comes poor sanitation and disease. Most of the diseases that these vulnerable groups are dying from are treatable. However the global community is not adequately prioritising resources sufficient to deal with these tragedies. Alternately, in some cases appropriate medical treatment cannot reach these people due to the war.

! Competition – One of the key ingredients in the definition of social conflict is the

concept of competition among conflicting parties. Usually this competition is believed to be spurred on by perceived or actual scarce material resources. Nowhere is this more evident than in the rebel movements that scramble to control the geographical areas that are rich with natural resources. Once such groups have military control of these areas they can sustain their cause for lengthy periods of time. More recently this sort of tussle for natural & mineral resources has been referred to as “conflict diamonds” or “conflict oil”. Struggle movements explain this as legitimate redistribution – something they as citizens of the given country

10

are entitled to. However, as long as the rest of the global community demand and buy these hijacked natural / mineral resources, violence and civil war will be sustained for decades.

! Predation – Uncontrolled predation in the natural ecosystem can lead to

extinction. The same is true of overt violent aggression especially in its extreme forms of genocide, mass killing and chemical warfare. The physical, social, psychological and spiritual devastation from these horrific acts of violence is often beyond comprehension. To de-construct the past and re-construct a future in the aftermath of such experiences is an immense challenge. Often it involves generational work to restore a social ecosystem of balance and harmony in a society that has suffered under severe predation.

! Parasitism – In the natural world, the parasite attaches itself to a host organism

and proceeds to feed off of it. In some instances, this is a mutually beneficial arrangement. However, in the majority of cases, opportunistic parasites will weaken and eventually destroy the host organism. This can be compared to covert structural corruption, violence & oppression. Even in societies where there seems to be a negative peace (absence of war) there can be a hidden violence, secret forms of corruption and oppression, lodged within the social structures that function like a poison or a cancer that spreads throughout the entire system. If this insidious infection is identified and located, it can be resisted. Often it is resisted with violence and counter violence. The peace building movement, however, is precisely tasked with finding other creative non-violent means of resistance and struggle against these “powers that be.”

• 3 Change Factors that Impact Peace Ecosystems In our search for answers to the violence and destructive forces around us, we can again turn to the natural sciences and the tenacity of the ecosystem. There are three significant growth-inducing transformational processes within the ecosystem that are worth exploring further. In summary they are: Co-evolution = The process whereby change in one species forces adaptation in another in order to survive within the ecosystem. By “co-evolution” we are here referring to the process of transformed attitudinal & behaviour changes. This change often occurs slowly in society and comes as a result of multiple factors. The recent rise in truth commissions in the last few decades is an attempt to reframe the justice issue. Truth commissions attempt to establish a joint truth about human atrocities that cannot be denied by generations to come. They seek to empower victims to tell their story, (in a way that is validated by the community at large), and to publicly shame and place responsibility on the shoulders of those who have perpetrated such violence. In this way, the truth commissions re-configure social relationships, redefine power dynamics and push all protagonists in the drama of violence and war to search for new ways or levels of humane interaction.

11

Ecological succession = The process whereby change takes place as a slow, consistent metamorphosis over a long period of time. The idea of ecological succession has a parallel in a society where sustained peaceful structural & systemic evolution occurs over a long duration of time. Certain streams of anthropology have put forward the evidence that most societies have been established and unified through historical acts or events of violence. What is less clear is why or how some of these cultures survive to build a peaceful existence and others seem to remain in cycles of violence and counter violence for decades. Whatever the case, over time these “chosen traumas’ or “chosen glories” serve to critically influence the framing of a collective psyche. Climax Community = The process whereby an ecosystem reaches a plateau of harmony & order which can be sustained for thousand's of years. This concept of “climax community” is congruent with the ideal vision of long-term peace-full coexistence. This is the hope that motivates us and energises us to keep on working for a better more peaceful world where life is respected, order is sustained and harmony is nurtured.

• Added Discussion Points Ecologists have explored the structure of the natural world on three levels – Population, Community, and Ecosystems. These three natural science categories also have significant parallels to the study and analysis of conflict and its outworking in today’s social science spheres. The following illustrations make some of these parallels: * Population – A group of the same species that lives in an area at the same time.

The concept of population as defined above, holds a particularly interesting analogy to the notion of the Nation-State. In the past, the nation-state was considered one of the most important and binding structures of order and social unity in the world. However, as globalisation begins to move across this planet, the notion of the ‘nation-state’ is beginning to decay, and its relevance as a social and political configuration, decline. Depending on which lens you choose to gaze through, the momentum of this phenomenon can be seen as either a negative or positive movement. Those with a sceptical view, see this nation-state deterioration as a spiral resulting in the complete disintegration of law, order and social organisation thereby leading the world into a state of chaos and anarchy. For others, this is a welcome trend that spells the final frontier of de-colonisation of the world, a violent struggle to put to death the inherited and often artificial barriers and social systems of power & control inequity and political & economic structural oppression and racism. Out of the ashes of this phenomenon may rise a phoenix and the world may well be re-ordered into a new global context of diversity and more peaceful cohabitation.

* Community – A group of different kinds of animal and plant populations living together in the same environment.

Tied to the above trend (the decline of the nation-state) is the increased violent struggle between ethnic, religious or indigenous communities, each calling for political, social or economic self-determination. With these new dilemmas, the question becomes what is the tie that binds groups of people together – is it the political ideologies and legal boundaries (arbitrary & irrelevant as they are) of the current countries of the globe? Or is it the common values of a shared history or heritage of language, culture and religion among specific people groups, that is really binding? New models of coexistence, socio-political & economic diversity

12

recognition, and power sharing in government systems are now beginning to take shape around the world. However, the reality of fair and equitable redistribution on a global level is still a distant horizon. * Ecosystems – The most complex level of organisation - organisms of a natural community, together with their environment, functioning as a unit.

There are increasingly strong “grass-roots” networks (human ecosystems) of civilian populations around the world, determined to stand for their rights and freedoms. This mushrooming of “on-the-ground” movements is mobilising people of many walks of life to rise up and refuse to accept an existence that is enmeshed in protracted wars, landlessness, political corruption, poverty and destructive criminal and domestic violence. The world’s greatest resource, its people, are empowering themselves to speak out against oppression and human rights violations in a new way. These “people’s power” movements are demanding change from their government leaders and the “powers that be”. They are insisting on playing a critical role in determining their joint future destiny. Amidst all these transitions, a momentum is growing among politicians, academics and practitioners to unearth & resurface indigenous practices of conflict resolution, restorative justice, and reconciliation and healing. The resurgence of many of these cultural traditions and values, combined with contemporary disciplines has helped to shape unique forms of governance, justice and social harmony in this new global era.

• Limits of the Ecosystem Analogy The purpose of analogies is to draw out otherwise hidden components of an object/subject. When one compares two things that are otherwise quite different, new angles of insight and understanding emerge. However, analogies are by no means foolproof and often carry inherent flaws or contradictions within themselves. This is certainly the case with the use of nature’s ecosystem as an analogy for peace system work. Do not hesitate to discuss with participants that each and every analogy has its own drawbacks and limitations. It may in fact be a creative challenge for you as facilitator to unpack the complexity of the ecosystem analogy as you train this material. However, the key here is to communicate with participants the key elements of peace system interdependency, movement/flow, complexity and multi-level involvement. One aspect that challenges the peace ecosystem analogy is the fact that in every healthy ecosystem there are those role-players who are called primary and secondary predatory consumers. These are descriptive of the animal and human interactions within the system. Primary consumers are small plant-eating animals and insects that in turn provide food for larger animals (and humans) who are or can be meat-eating predators. As we will later mention, even the natural phenomenon of predation can be a force that if not contained can destroy the balance within an ecosystem. This part of the analogy imposes a tension around the role of bloodshed as a necessary component in the ecosystem. For most people this would simply reinforce the conviction that human beings, like animals, are born with an instinct toward aggression and violence – a natural bent to avenge injustice. Thus, violence and war are simply necessary evils or seasons of the human soul as the ancient saying from Scriptures states, there is “a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and time to build” – (Ecclesiastes 3:3). One response to this conceptual dilemma is to open up discussion around the fact that we as humankind are challenged (and some believe even mandated) to find ways to manage and keep this violence under control. This could indeed be part of our sacred human duty, and what distinguishes us from other strata of the animal kingdom.

13

Section II: Intervention Hardware

• Multi-Track Peace Processes Map TIME FRAME: Micro

Immediate Action: (2-6 Months)

Short-range Planning: (1-2 Years)

Decade Thinking & Implementation: (5-10 Years)

Generational Work (20+ Years) Macro

FOCUS:

Crisis Intervention:

Preparation & Training:

Design for Social Change:

Desired Future:

(Issues / Substance)

(People / Relationships)

(Transformed Institutions / Systems)

(Metamorphosis of Society/Vision)

KEY QUESTIONS

How do we manage the immediate crisis?

What are the root causes of the conflict?

How do we prevent cyclical reoccurrence?

What are the future social structures and relationships we desire?

PROCESS & SKILL - SETS:

Peace Keeping: Conflict Management, Containment & Handling Skills.

Peace Making: Trauma Healing & Conflict Resolution Workshop Facilitation Skills.

Peace Building: Non-violent Strategic Action & Restorative Justice Practice Intervention Skills.

Peace Sustaining: Re-construction & Reconciliation Implementation Skills.

ACTIVITY

- Direct

Intervention - Diagnostic

Analysis - Observing/

Monitoring

- Relief / Human Aid Work

- Short-term

Immediate Mitigation

Measures - Disarm,

demobilise & de-mine

- Cessation of

violence

- Training /

Education - Identifying

Change Agents

- Capacity

Building

- Surfacing & EmpoweringResources

- Team

Building - Trauma

Healing Efforts

- Mobilising

People

- Developing Inter-sectoral

Linkages - Broad Spectrum Peace

Education - Direct Non-violent Action - Structural Change

(political, economic & social)

- Violence Prediction - Dispute Resolution System

Designs - Holistic Response

Initiatives - Developing Infra-

structure for institutionalised peace

- Developing

Forums for Future Imaging

- Giving Voice

to Peace “Dream- Keepers”

- Maximising

Resonance with Global Initiatives

- Unleashing

TransformedArts, Media & Culture Capacity

- Engaging in

Symbolic Activities

- Reconciliation

! Carl Stauffer, with categories adapted from work by J.P. Lederach

14

• CSVR Peace Work Flowchart: Hidden Conflict? Overt Violence? Post-War Phase?

2.) Joint Analysis and Diagnosis of

Conflict Context

ENTRY POINT

?

1.) Request / Invitation for training or intervention

3.) Development of Integrated Strategic

Approach

Activism / Advocacy & Non-violent Strategic Action

Prevention

Crisis Management

Trauma Healing & Victim

Empowerment

Restorative Justice: Criminal Justice Transitional Justice Human Rights Education

Reconstruction & Reconciliation

4.) Intervention Implementation

Strategic Who?

Government Civil Society Community

Services Offered: RolesTraining Peace Facilitation Capacity Building Sharing Lessons

Research Input &

Interaction

Main-streaming of Gender & Youth Input

15

• Conflict Intervention Roles Chart Grafted into healthy peace building systems are critical roles that key “third party” actors/ intervenors often play. The chart below provides a summary of seven such pivotal roles of conflict intervention. Attached to each role are certain skill competencies. These roles & competencies will be further developed and expanded on in Volume II – the Participant’s Manual of this 3-part series. This Roles Chart has been included here for the purpose of giving a general introduction to the practical side of intervention within a peace system.

© Carl Stauffer/2001

Peace Intervention:

How do we get from the crisis to desired change?

“Seer” “Bridge Builder” Conflict Analysis Relationship & and Diagnosis Trust Building “Healer” “Conduit” Caregiver, Active Listening Confidant, & Deep & Counsellor Communication “Carrier-Catalyst” “Activist” Negotiation & Advocacy for Mediation Social Change “Translator- Guide” Process Design & Facilitation

Peace Intervention: How do we get from the crisis to desired

change?

16

• Facilitator’s Peace System Exercises (1,2 & 3) Overall Exercise Objectives: • To enhance the ability of participants to visualise, understand & act in terms of the

“big picture” (macro-level) of the peace building process • To experience the pivotal elements of joint analysis, interdependency & making

systemic linkages in & among the stakeholders who are part of a peace building effort (micro level)

• To feel the theoretical & practical tensions of “deep-rooted” complex conflict, the

divergent voices & the paradoxical ethics involved in an integrated, systems-based conflict transformation endeavour

Exercise Option One: “Three-Tier Human Conflict Sculpture” Instructions: 1. Ask for three participant volunteers to come to the front of the room. 2. Arrange the three persons as follows:

• First volunteer must be willing to lie on the floor on their back (if the floor is dirty you may assist by laying out flip-chart papers for the volunteer to lie on).

• Second volunteer must stand on one side of the person laying on the floor & place one foot on his/her stomach (they may remove their shoes or put paper under the shoes).

• Third volunteer is placed behind the second volunteer standing on a chair with both hands pressing down on the shoulders of the second volunteer.

17

3. Have the rest of the participants observe the sculpture for a few minutes.

Debrief the exercise by asking the following questions: " What do you see here? Explain what or why you see this? " Does this represent any system, organisation or structure that you are familiar with? Why? " Describe the system from your point of view – How does the system work? " What do the various persons / levels / parts of this system represent to you? " Who has the power in the system? Why?

4. Invite two more volunteers forward. Ask them to imagine that they were

asked to intervene in this conflict structure. If they were the third-party intermediaries, where would they try to access / enter this conflict? How would they position themselves? Ask them to physically place themselves in the sculpture accordingly. Have them explain their positioning. Invite full discussion about appropriate intermediary roles.

5. Finally, ask the two intermediaries to physically try to change or move the

structure. Ask them to move slowly – making one attempted move for each hand- clap that you as facilitator make. Caution them not to hurt each other. Once the movement process has taken its course, debrief the observations & experiences of change / transformation that occurred.

_____________________________________________________________________ Exercise Option Two: “Spinning a Web of Peace” Instructions: 1. Ask for nine participant volunteers to come forward & stand in a circle. 2. Take a ball of wool and ask each person to extend one hand & form their

pointer finger into a hook position. 3. As the facilitator, tie the end of the wool to one person’s finger & then begin

spinning a web of wool among the circle of participants. 4. As you (the facilitator) spin this web, you will describe a “real-life” case

scenario of an integrated peace building effort that you are familiar with. Each person represents another stop at which point you will describe another level / sector or actor in the systems framework of conflict transformation. You may want to stick a prominent label on each participant that identifies them as one of the specific “tracks” or sector levels in the system.

18

5. You may have your own description of the different levels of the system, OR

you could use the nine “tracks” model identified by Dr. Louise Diamond & Ambassador John McDonald in their book entitled, “Multi-track diplomacy – A systems Approach to Peace.” The following chart outlines this approach:

Overview of Multi-Track Diplomacy as a System Track: Purpose: Function: 1. Government Peacemaking through

Diplomacy Command Function

2. Non-governmental / Professional

Peacemaking through Professional Conflict Resolution

Regulating Function

3. Business Peacemaking through Commerce

Exchange Function

4. Private Citizen Peacemaking through Personal Involvement

Alternative Power Source Function

5. Research, Training, and Education

Peacemaking through Learning

The Brain of the System

6. Activism Peacemaking through Advocacy

The Fight Leader of the System

7. Religion Peacemaking through Faith in Action

The Heart of the System

8. Funding Peacemaking through Providing Resources

The Financial Battery of the System

9. Communications & the Media

Peacemaking through Information

Information & Communication function of the System

6. When you have completed describing the case scenario, keep the circle & web

in place while debriefing the exercise. Ask the participants to observe the web of wool that binds them together. Have them answer the following questions:

" What do you see? " How would you describe the web? " What characterises the web? " How can you make application from this web exercise to the process of

designing, setting-up & nurturing an integrated system or framework for peace building?

___________________________________________________________________________________

19

Exercise Option Three: “Conflict in the Countryside” – A Peace Building Role Play Instructions: 1. Divide the whole participant group into breakaway groups of 3-5 persons

each. 2. Give each small group the Phase 1 summary brief of the role-play. Allow

ample time for them to read, discuss & begin working on a joint plan of action.

3. After 15-20 minutes, introduce the Phase 2 brief into the scenario. Either

read the brief out loud for all the groups to hear, OR go to each group & hand them the brief to read on their own. In either case, each group should receive a copy of the brief.

4. In 10-minute intervals, introduce Phase 3 & 4 and then allow another 10

minutes for each group to make decisions regarding their final way forward. 5. Ask each group to report back on their deliberations in the plenary group. 6. In plenary, debrief the role-play by asking the following sample of questions:

# How did your group deal with the time constraints? # How did your group decide on its priorities? # How did your group try to use its relationships, resources & connections

strategically? # How did your group deal with the various ethical dilemmas / issues as

they arose in the role-play? # How did the role-play make you as a person (or group) feel? # In regards to a systems approach to peace building, did you feel

splintered, scattered or disempowered OR did you feel linked, connected & empowered?

_____________________________________________________________________

20

Conflict in the Countryside - A Peace-building Role-Play

Phase 1: An African country has just emerged from more than 12 years of civil war. The major factions and the governmental have reached a cease-fire accord and have established a transitional government that will function during the next two years. The Accords establish programs for the demobilization of soldiers and the repatriation of refugees. The villages of Kwali and Buganda are located in the remote province of Mukigamba. The two villages hold the key markets and centers of activity in this otherwise predominantly rural province. They are located about 15 kilometers apart. The villages are inhabited by two ethnic groups. The Lomoro have traditionally lived in Kwali, and the Kigolo in the village of Bugunda. Before the war, they seemed to get along fine and even had a history of intermarriages. However, the province of Mukigamba was hotly contested throughout the war. As the war broke, both villages joined their respective ethnic groups in forming liberation fronts, the LLF and KLF. While both fought against the government forces, the worse fighting was between them, with several severe massacres on each side. The war destroyed much of the province, forcing massive evacuation. Both villages had their schools and local administration offices demolished. In the past months refugees and fighters are returning to the villages to begin a new life. Fear, deep pain and animosities still remained seared in the minds and hearts of most people from the two villages. Peace may have been signed in Geneva, but tensions are high in Mukigamba. As part of the international support for the reconstruction effort, a European Health Association has decided to construct a much needed health clinic in Mukigamba. There is not sufficient money to construct a much needed health clinic in each village, only one per province. In its early research and discussions with the communities in Mukigamba, it is clear that the clinic should be located in either the village of Kwali or Bugunda, which are the most accessible points for the rest of the province. It is also very clear that both communities feel it should be in their village, and that if it is not, they will be denied services and will not be able to risk using the clinic because of personal security reasons. Some have even hinted that if it is placed in enemy territory, it will be hit. This is no idle threat, given that there are still gangs of youth, former fighters who are now unemployed who have access to guns and ammunition. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that no local administration has formally emerged in either village since the cease-fire, thus one must rely on the informal networks. The Health Association is asking you to develop a proposal that outlines a process design with recommendations of what should be done next and the steps to follow. Their goal and yours: develop a process that best corresponds to meeting health needs in deeply conflicted and divided communities. Lederach/1998

21

Phase 2: In hearing that your team is developing a proposal for "a clinic" in Mukigamba, a local commander who was actively involved in the Lomoro Liberation Front (LLF) from the village of Kwali, (a young man known on the streets as Chuck Norris II,) has sent a message demanding that you meet with him. Delivered by one of his young boys it is hard to understand what he wants. He apparently is suggesting he would help you find a place in Kwali to build it, and that if it is built in Bugunda it will be seen as an affront to the LLF. He identifies himself as the "acting mayor." At the same time, the Minister of Education has just announced that a proposed rebuilding of the Kwali Vocational School will be postponed for at least one year. Lederach/1998 Phase 3: You have just received a phone call from a colleague working in another NGO. She informs you that yesterday an assessment team from the USAID passed by her office and showed her plans for an inoculation program and the delivery of medicines into Mukigamba. A team of US Doctors will be placed for one month to provide primary health care in the province. They will be arriving in the next week. Lederach/1998 Phase 4: Fighting broke out last night just outside of Kwali. It seems that there is a contested piece of land between several families. Prior to the war a family of a mixed marriage had lived and worked this parcel of land. During the war they fled and the land was taken over by a Lomoro family who was close to the LLF. The displaced family has now returned and is demanding their land. Two people died in the shooting, both from the displaced family. Rumors are spreading about whom did it. The Kigolo youth connected with the Kigolo Liberation Front (KLF) are pressing hard for retaliation. One of the respected women from Bugunda has asked you to please come and talk with these youth before the shooting starts again. Lederach/1998

22

Section III: Supplemental Readings • THE HISTORY OF HUMAN APPROACHES TO CONFLICT

1. The Rule of the “Claw and Fang” Starting with our prehistoric ancestors, and all through history to date, this has been the most popular response of instinct or choice to the handling of human conflict. We borrow from the animal kingdom in this one. It’s all about force and competition, the biggest, meanest and most powerful person or group WINS! It has to do with out-manoeuvring out-smarting, coercing our supposed opponents’ into giving in and letting go. Unfortunately, throughout the world this approach is the most studied, researched and talked about, whether that be in situations of war, criminal justice systems, courts, prisons, women and children abuse, domestic violence, the use of guns, sports and/or children’s fist-fights at school. As folk musician, Randy Stonehill puts it, “We dress up in tuxedos but we function like barbaric tribes.” 2. The Law of an “Eye for an Eye” This was a positive progression from the above-mentioned approach. This law is encompassed in the Mosaic laws of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures and was practised by other groups of persons around the Israelites at the time, namely in the laws of the Hammurabi Code. This intricate set of laws was put into place to keep people from overdoing revenge when someone had been wronged. So, if you loose a tooth or an eye in a fight, the offending person must loose the equivalent in punishment. It was very fair and possibly just, however, we are not sure how restorative it was. This type of law is still used to a degree today as seen in such practices as the death penalty and in the rules adhered to in certain very fundamentalist Islamic communities. 3. The Ethic of “The Golden Rule” With the progress of time humans realised that the law of an ‘Eye for and Eye’ was quite harsh. Indeed they conjectured that there must surely be a better way to live. So, with the coming of Christ’s teaching’s there developed the ethic behind the Golden Rule, a standard which is by now quite universal and taught early on to children of most cultures. This ethic essentially says, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This idea seems quite simple with in mind that we would all like to be treated with respect, dignity and kindness therefore we must treat others that way and they will respond in kind. However, in reality this is a bit naïve. Many people do not and will not return kindness for kindness, respect for respect or dignity for dignity. In fact, what has happened is that this: “Golden Rule” has been now interpreted to mean, “Treat others well as long as they are treating you well. If they fail to do that, then you have no further obligation to them. In fact, you now may well have the right or responsibility to retaliate or get revenge, should you have been treated poorly in any way. 4. The Principle of “Win-Win” The above concept represents a very popular recent strategy for the management of conflict. The assumption here is that conflict is all about a breakdown in communication and understanding, and in perceptions of scarce resources. With appropriate skills and training we can learn how to facilitate a dialogue process that helps conflicting parties find a ‘common ground’ and then be empowered to come up with, and own, multiple solutions that benefit all the parties involved. This has been a very helpful and empowering process for many persons in the field of conflict resolution but it also carries with it certain shortcomings. 6. The Synergy of “Transformation” This framework refers to a comprehensive process of conflict management through a long-term, multi-disciplinary intervention approach. It involves moving a destructive conflict through a metamorphosis whereby the conflict energy becomes a source of constructive growth and change.

23

• EVOLUTION OF THE PEACE AND CONFLICT TRANFORMATION FIELD Spirituality Justice Analysis Law Practice Construction

“The Pacifists” Peace Movements

“The Activists” Change Movements

“The Academics” World-View Shifts 1960’s – 1990’s

“The Legalists” Law & Order 1970s

“The Pragmatists” Conflict Resolution Skills Focus 1980’s

“The Constructionists” Peace Building Field 1990’s

Ancient Religions: Jainism Judaism Islam Buddhism Indigenous/Animists Traditions Christianity: Historic Peace Churches such as Mennonite, Quaker, Brethren International Fellowship of Reconciliation Conscientious Objection

Lysistrata actions Anti-war activists (1900 – 90s) Anti-Vietnam movement (1960s) Nuclear Disarmament (1950 – 90s) Ghandi in India (1940s) Martin Luther King, Fannie Lou Hammer & others in U.S (1960s) Cesar Chavez in U.S. (1970s)

Post-WWI peace movements institutionalised, examined cause and conditions of peace and conflict e.g. (Galtung, Boulding Northern Europe peace institutes, undergraduate programmes in peace studies and a few graduate programmes) Mathematics-developed models of arms race and conflicts; game theory Psychology-theorised on psychological need for conflict, basic drives (Freud, Volkan)

Legal traditions such as: • Interna-

tional law • War

tribunals • Truth

commi-ssions

Introduction of “Alternative Dispute Resolution: (ADR) Why? Because in comparison to legal system, alternative dispute resolution is: - Less expensive - Quicker - Preserve

relationships between parties

- Permits the parties in conflict to participate in the outcome of their conflict

Where is ADR used?

In the 1990’s the focus has turned from “ resolving” conflict to a: • comprehensive, • transformative • pro-active • strategic process This involves: • Problem –

solving, • Increased capacity

for dealing with conflict,

• Relationship-building, and

• Healing & Reconciliation.

24

Chico Mendes – non-violent activities in Brazil Khan Abdul Ghaffar leader of the Pathans non-violent struggle against the British “People’s Power” Movement in the Philippines Numerous others around the world

Biology-theorises biological drive for aggression(Lorenz) Sociology-theorised that societal structures create conflict (Wehr) Behavioural Science – theorised that violence is learned (Bandura) Anthropology –documented cultural approaches to conflict (Nader) Economics – theorised economic causes of conflict (Boulding) Political Science-studied power relationships Peace Science-studied causes and conditions of peace Conflict Resolution-analysed conflict at all levels, and developed new processes

- By Policy makers - Schools (peer

mediation programmes)

- Law school programmes

- International diplomats

- Business negotiations

- Neighbourhood justice centres

- Victim-offender reconciliation programmes

- Family and divorce mediations

Levels of society involved: - the media - religious groups - communities - governments - businesses - academia /

schools - the arts - civil society

© Adapted Lederach / Schirch 1998

25

• DIMENSIONS OF CONFLICT:

Dimensions of conflict Description of conflict Interaction between individual/groups in conflict

Prescriptive conflict intervention

Material/analytical Competing interests over an issue or scarce resources cause conflict

• Remove emotions, think objectively • Think analytically/rationally about the

problem • Improve problem-solving skills • Separate the people from the problem

Social/relational Poor communication patterns competitive social attitudes, an imbalance of power, and/or poor social structures cause conflict

• Improve communication skills of the parties

• Switch from a competitive to a cooperative model for relationships

• Address power imbalances • Construct social structures that meet

human needs

Symbolic/Perceptual Differing perceptions, culture, and world views create conflict

• Examine differing perceptions, values, core beliefs and appreciate different world views through metaphor, story, ritual and symbol

• Discover the deeper meaning of the material dimensions of the conflict

• Create context conducive for relationship building (what common ground is shared?)

• Develop common “frame” for talking about the problem.

26

• FROM ISSUES TO SYSTEMS – The ‘Nested Paradigm’ Peace researcher and theorist Maire Dugan (“Making the Connection: Peace Studies and Conflict Transformation” 1994 (unpublished manuscript)) has developed what she calls a “nested paradigm” as a mechanism for considering both the narrower issues and the broader systematic aspects of conflict resolution and peace building:

Dugan explains this paradigm development from an effort to answer the question of how a conflict resolution practitioner approaches a given situation differently from a peace researcher. She took, as a practised example, a violent conflict that had emerged in a local school between black and white gangs of young boys. She speculated that a conflict resolution practitioner, such a s a mediator, would see this as an issue in dispute, a case to be explored and resolved between the boys who had been fighting. The answer to the problem, then, would be to resolve the issue that sparked the fight. Taking it one step further, she suggested that in some instances, depending on the model of practice used, the mediator might see this as not only as a particular issue to be resolves but also a relationship problem that needed to be addressed. In this case, the issue would be embedded within a relationship that needed to be reconciled. Here, the practitioner might move and incorporate, for example, prejudice reduction or bias-

System

Sub-system

Relationship

Issue

Dugan’s Nested Paradigm of Conflict Foci

27

awareness work with the boys in order to increase their understanding of one another and promote reconciliation in a deeper sense. The problem in this instance would be defined as a broken relationship that needed to be restored as part of the solution. A peace researcher, on the other hand, would see the school fight in the context of a society built on racial inequality and economic inequality. In other words, the boys’ struggle would be seen as a symptomatic of broader societal structures and systems. The problem would be defined as racism. The solution, according to the peace researcher, would be to change society and the social structures that create and perpetrate racism. In the conflict resolution approach, the practitioner’s effort would be likely to help diffuse the immediate face to face tensions, and in some cases would also repair the broken relationships. This approach, however, would do little to redress the inequalities in the broader system that was at the root of racial tensions. The peace researcher approach, on the other hand, would move to label the problem as racism, which would help focus attention on the deeper structural and systemic concerns. But this prescription would offer few handles for dealing with the immediate crisis and the problems of relationship. Dugan, therefore adds a third, intermediate level – the subsystem. Here the focus is on the immediate system within which the boys are located, in this case the school. At this level, a peace building strategy could be designated that would address both the systematic concerns and the problematic issues of racism in the context of the relationships in the subsystem. The school, for example, might initiate a required course of diversity and race for students and teachers. This would provide concrete ways of surfacing and addressing systemic racism, while at the same time engaging in concrete programmatic activity that would deal with the immediate issue of gang violence and the need to reconcile the two groups of boys. The subsystem, in other words, is a middle-range LOCUS of activity which connects the other levels in the system. The Nested Paradigm underscores the need to look consistently at the broader context of systemic issues. It suggests that actions can be taken as experiments at the subsystem level, which permit making a connection between systemic and immediate issue concerns. © John Paul Lederach – Excerpted with permission from Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, Eastern Mennonite University, 1994.

28

• Mapping Conflict: Lenses for Analysis Overall Transformation View • What is the nature of the current reality/crisis? Where are we now? • What is the shared vision for the future? How do we create it? • What changes will be needed to move from reality to vision? • What will be needed to initiate, and sustain those change processes? Escalation Sheet • What have been the elements that led to escalation? • Can you see repeated pattern? • At what level in the escalation process would it have useful to change or intervene

differently? Style Profile • To what degree can the conflict dynamics be explained by the difference of style

in the individuals involved or in leadership? • Can you identify moments of shift from calm to storm where people have gone

into excess? • What learning/change would be necessary to improve this aspect of the conflict

response system? Material • Are there specific decisions that will need to be made around substantive issues? • Are there problems that need negotiation and solutions? • Are there resources under dispute? • What outcomes are sought/desired in terms of the substance? • What will be needed to improve participant’s capacities to address the substantive

issues constructively? Relational • Are there problems with the process design (participation, recognition, power)? • Is communication effective or is mis-communication contributing to the cycle of

destructive conflict? • Are there social/political structures that need changing or are under dispute? • What needs to be done to improve any of the above?

29

Symbolic • How do underlying beliefs, values and world views contribute to the cycle of

conflict? • What are the deeper meanings that people attach to the issues that emerge from

their culture, worldview or belief? • What are the defining stories, myths, narratives, metaphors that people use to

explain the conflict and how are they windows into perceptual differences? • What is needed to improve the understanding of cultural world view differences? Dugan Nested Model • What are the structural issues and concerns that contribute to and sustain the

conflict? • What are the most immediate, visible issue around which people are fighting or

dividing? • What are points of access in the community (subsystem) that will be needed or

can be used as entry points? • How can the visible conflict around issues be used as an opportunity for pursuing

relational community and/or structural change? Psychological View • What are the most important aspects of how the people create and define their

identity in reference to the conflict? • Can you identify some key ways that psychology creates and/or filters reality? • Which of the psychological elements seems to contribute most regularly and

intensely to sustaining or increasing a destructive cycle of conflict? • What are the changes that would be needed in order to break this cycle? System View • What are the immediate crises and most decisive issues separating people? • What are the patterns of conflict over time (decades and generations)? • What are the formal structures that have emerged? Do they help or hinder? • Are there structures that should change or be created? • What are the informal patterns that exist around information flow, decision-

making, etc? • What are the deeper emotional processes, stories, myths, & chosen traumas that

contribute to patterns and identify? • Who do people say they are? • What are the different levels of change needed, and what type of processes would

be needed to pursue these? How are the processes linked? © Lederach / Schirch 1998

30

• DISCOVERING PEACE:

A 5- STEP PROCESS FOR TRANSFORMING CONFLICT IN OUR LIVES AND IN THE WORLD

(By Louise Diamond, Ph. D, Director of Peace Works, Washington, DC.)

Like human beings everywhere, we all want peace in our lives, and good relations with our families, friends and neighbours. Peace, however, is not a static state but a dynamic process of discovery. The discovery of peace is an ongoing, vibrant unfolding of our human capacity to create relationships and structures that meet our needs and serve the well being of all. ‘Discovering Peace’ is a 5-stage intellectual map, with related practical skills, for engaging successfully in this discovery process. By exploring the five stages of the model we become like the heroes and heroines of our myths and legends: We touch the ideal, we accept the quest, we are tested, in that test we find our strength to overcome the worst of horrors and we emerge victorious and renewed. In this way we learn to transform the conflict in our lives, empower ourselves as creators of peace, as peacemakers in our homes, in our communities and in the world. Transforming conflict is different from managing or resolving conflict. To transform is to work systematically to change the very assumptions, beliefs and perceptions of the parties in conflict, as well as to open the doors to creative solutions and needs expressed in the conflict. It is to release the energy bound in the intellectual, emotional, physical and spiritual patterns of thought and action that have built up over time, and to re-shape that energy into new more positive patterns of relationship. The five stages of the Discovering Peace process, briefly described, The Motivation (Touching the Ideal)

Like love, beauty, harmony and truth, peace is an ideal that humanity has persistently sought to attain. Because it is an ideal it is elusive – we are always reaching for it but can never quite grasp or own fully. We can, however, touch peace when we wish, for it is available to us through our inherent human experience. When we still our minds through music, art or poetry, when we mediate or pray, we find ourselves in a beautiful spot in the natural world, in these or other similar moments we have a fleeting experience of true peace. Though we may not be able to sustain this experience, we can come back to it in our mind and memory whenever, we like. Touching this ideal, which transcends culture, suffering and the daily circumstances of our lives, we are motivated to seek peace and resolve conflict in our lives. This is the battery or fuel source for the process.

31

The Quest (Vision and Intention)

Seeking the ideal, we begin our journey, our quest to actualise the ideal. At the beginning of any journey it is helpful you know where we are going, so we create a map or blueprint. This is a detailed picture of what we want our relationship to look like. This is more than simply a description of a preferred political settlement; it is a prescription for a relationship. How would it feel like, look like on a daily basis; socially and economically as well as politically, between individuals and among groups, officially and unofficially? This visioning process sets the goals for the journey, and is of critical importance, for it guides all future steps.

A vision without a commitment to its achievement is useless. To proceed on the quest we must make a clear choice to do so. By setting in motion our intention to complete our quest successfully we activate the force of will which carries us through the journey and over the rough places. The will is the way to the goal.

The Test (Suffering and Human Need)

On this journey we are tested by human suffering. We experience a wound, a trauma, a conflict situation that produces pain and anger. Sometimes the trauma is a single event. Sometimes a long-term process. Regardless, it leaves a legacy in which our hearts, and often our homes, our families and our lives are damaged and wounded. We wonder how we will ever get over this hurt.

If we look deeply through the layers of pain we find at the root of our suffering is a basic human need that has been violated. We, all, individually and collectively have the same inherent human needs for survival, safety, recognition, connectedness, esteem and growth. We all want to be treated justly and with respect for our innate human dignity and identity. When we don’t know what needs to attend to, we seek to resolve our conflicts by trying to relieve the suffering any way we can. Discovering which needs have been violated allows us to proceed through the suffering in a clear direction. Further, it allows us to make contact with something beyond ourselves, for we see readily that all parties to a conflict have similar needs, and that, unlike positions, where one side loses and the other side wins, needs are met best by mutual support and action. The Transformation (Self-Examination and Release) It is easy to say that someone else has wounded us, and they must make it right. Conflicts usually sustain themselves – and immobilise any movement toward resolution – by this mutual/blame process. To move beyond this, we must engage in self-examination. What have, I/we, done to feed the conflict? Regardless of our motivation, which may well be noble or a matter of self-defence, what effects have our behaviour had on the other? This process takes great courage and effort for the inertia and self-satisfaction of the victim/blame scenario are strong forces for remaining in the status quo.

32

Once we have examined our thoughts and behaviour wherein we have been holding bitterness, anger and hatred toward the other – we find some way to release, to let go off whatever has obscured our movement toward a peaceful resolution. This requires that we transcend our accustomed view and find deeper resources, inner strength we might not have known was there. This may take the form of asking for or offering forgiveness, or of letting go of the suffering we have carried. The letting go makes room for something new to happen, and is the critical and necessary point for any transformation process. When we overcome or transcend our worst horrors, we set in motion the reconciliation and healing that all parties to a conflict desperately need. We have been tested, and we are victorious.

Renewal (Re- Framing and Action)

Letting, go, even a little bit, opens new space for us to see the other side and the conflict in a different light. Now we can begin to hear how their experience makes sense to them, to understand how the differences in culture, perspective and circumstance might have fed misunderstanding and ill will. Our negative images and assumptions about our “energy” begin to drop away, and we find they are human, like us. We can now re-frame the picture, seeing new possibilities and joining our energies toward the creative discovery of new approaches, and potential solutions.

With this new perspective we can take actions that, before now, would have been unthinkable. We can now begin to build the foundation of trust on which any new relationship must stand. To erect bridges by which parties might cross over chasms of the past, to establish new communications, to discover common ground on which to meet and create together our future, shared reality.

This transformative process is an unfolding journey of discovery. At each stage there is potential for stagnation. Yet if we call on our highest potential as human beings and renew the commitment to our vision, we find the momentum to keep moving to the next stage and the next. Like the hero or the heroine we will have won. It is not so much what is won as the process of the searching that enables us to grow and learn and improve our individual and collective lives. In this way the transformation of conflict is an evolutionary imperative for humanity, for if we do not evolve new forms of relating to one another and dealing with our differences without violence we will surely perish.