1
CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION
Ho Won Jeong
An intractable conflict tends to have an extensive history, including a tumultuous present, and uncertain future (Dedring, 1999). Bringing normalcy to interpersonal, intergroup, and interstate relations in a prolonged conflict requires the deescalation of a struggle that should eventually lead to peacebuilding (Requejo & Nagel, 2014). The dynamics of protracted conflict are not static but amorphous, shifting from one stage to another, influenced by the actions of others (Stavenhagen, 2016). Understanding diverse aspects of transforming adversarial relationships is essential for conflict resolution.
Transformation touches upon institutional and structural dimensions of adversarial relationships that contribute to generating new conflicts. The abuse of one party by another, especially in power asymmetry, requires the structural transformation of oppressive relations. This chapter examines various processes to alter different types and categories of conflict relations that are a continuing source of marginalization and oppression.
Approaches to conflict transformation
Conflict transformation involves the creation of self-supporting and durable relationships along with the recognition of justice as a goal. Conflict does not disappear or cannot simply be suppressed by a control mechanism (Burton, 1997). Antagonistic behavior in social conflict situations has structural origins (such as rising discontent attributed to declines in the quality of life alongside a skewed income distribution in favor of a few, for instance, despite a new revenue generated by mineral wealth).
In oppressive social and political situations, an attempt to suppress the emergence of a conflict can simply mean concealing the unjust relations. Deep disparities and despair continue to feed resistance against domination and release an impulse for violence (as illustrated at the beginning of the seemingly failed Arab Spring). Most importantly, conflict resolution cannot be simply brought about by reimposing a dominant order, as has happened under the current military dictatorship in Egypt. The maintenance of order by coercive means makes little contribution to the integration or harmony of society. Despite the subsiding of the waves of violence in the Balkans, former Soviet Republics, the Middle East, and various parts of Africa, continuing ethnic tensions are reminiscent of past hostilities (Hollander, 2016).
The control of a specific conflict may be necessary for the containment of hostilities, but its ultimate resolution should be based on the exploration of means to remove its root causes. Because the multi-faceted aspects of conflict dynamics are not likely to be transformed by limited changes in actors, their roles, and issues, a response to the underlying causes of conflict may require dramatic changes in social and political institutions, as seen in South Africa and Northern Ireland (Cunningham, 2016; Midgley, 2002). The general enhancement of societies with the improvement of welfare for everyone demands a democratic reform of institutions that can eliminate the sources of grievances.
There are many different steps toward conflict resolution. First, a protracted struggle has to be controlled before settlement, by negotiation, either directed or assisted (Jeong, 2008). Yet this process would not be successful unless conflict was recharacterized as a problem to be solved by the major contestants (rather than a contest to win). In fact, an outright victory or revenge is not achieved by conflict resolution (Botes, 2003). The key to the peaceful ending of any conflict lies in the cultivation of the ability of the adversaries to manage different preferences in a decision-making process and produce an outcome that can at least be accepted or tolerated in lieu of a continued struggle. This process would have to eventually result in relationship changes, with a shift from being rivals to collaborators. This relationship change can, in turn, lay the groundwork for building trust that is essential for mutual coexistence and each other’s prosperity.
The most fundamental initial task for conflict transformation is to examine what needs to be transformed and explore how to achieve this. A search for a mutually satisfactory solution should be based on the exploration of the causes of animosities. Thus, adversaries need to jointly investigate factors or conditions that continuously regenerate antagonistic relationships at the first place. Transformation requires patience and persistence along with a realistic assessment of issues and problems that sustain an intractable conflict for decades or generations.
Actor perspectives
Dramatic system changes may proceed from actor transformations (Galtung, 2007). There are diverse sources involved in producing changes at personal, group, and system level (Matyók et al., 2011). The Cold War ended with internal changes (for instance, the rise of Mikhail Gorbachev that triggered the demise of the Soviet Union). The drastic transformation of South Africa’s sociopolitical system resulted from changes in the positions long held by white political elites and their constituents.
Whereas an actor’s ability is limited in a large-scale struggle, each party has a different capacity to alter the internal and external conditions that affect an uncontrolled conflict process. In general, weaker parties (e.g., Palestinians in the Israeli occupied West Bank) have few other choices but to passively resist powerful adversaries in a struggle for survival. Detrimental changes can be brought to a weaker party. These include, for instance, the use of massive migration as a tool to assert ethnic hegemony in an occupied territory (e.g., the Chinese government’s use of migration of Han nationalities to Tibet and Xingjian to reverse the population mix) (Khétsun, 2014). It is designed to weaken the original ethnic inhabitants’ rights to their own territory. Beyond territorial control, cultural genocide might include the destruction of religious and cultural work by the subjugated groups. In the case of Tibet, this included demolishing more than 6,000 ancient monasteries and artifacts as well as an indoctrination of monks by “patriotic education,” the abduction of a 6-year-old boy designated as the Panchan Lama (whose status is second only to the Dalai Lama), and the requirement of the Chinese government’s permission to become a monk (Florio et al., 2003).
A conflict system
Evolving intra- and inter-party relations reconfigure the dynamics of conflict (Jeong, 2008). Adversarial relationships can be transformed by changes within each major adversary as well as new external circumstances. The emergence of new inter-party relationships might be attributed to changes within one or both of the major adversaries. An actor’s will, capacities, and intentions have a dialectic interaction with an external force (Jeong, 2008). An external intervention can dramatically change the capacity of each party to pursue their own goals in a struggle with their adversaries.
Intra-party politics: Internal party divisions
Intra-party politics have an impact on approaches to adversaries. Despite shared grievances, internal divisions reveal differences over strategies for action (such as violent or nonviolent) so a political struggle impacts on the dynamics of a peace process. Conflict decisions can indicate a delicate balance in intra-party relationships. Hardline and moderate factions fight over high political stakes. Extremist groups favor violent struggles against an external adversary, yet the moderates are likely to seek compromise. The prevalence of hardliners becomes an obstacle to negotiation (as exemplified by the Israel–Palestinian settlement negotiations since the early 2000s). The strength of conciliatory political forces within each party is critical to any successful peace process. Thus, the outcome of an internal struggle shapes a peace process.
Each party’s position is often determined by internal changes such as in the leadership as well as the political necessity to keep internal unity. Internal expectations can have either a negative or positive impact on inter-party relations. Factional negotiations are required for developing positions on diverse issues. Yet settlement factions need to have persuasive power or sufficient strength to overcome opposition of veto factions.
Protracted internal fighting weakens the prospect for an early settlement of a conflict with another group. Rivalry for leadership between factions makes concession to the other party difficult (Jeong, 2008). A high-level agreement can be blocked if domestic opposition resists giving up their core issues (e.g., Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank in Palestine). The main concern becomes how to minimize any disruption to the advancement of a negotiated settlement. The attitudinal changes of the elite must be accompanied by the support of diverse groups and the public at large to enhance the prospect for a successful peace process (Wohl et al., 2016).
Unique circumstances of internal division are reflected in a political struggle over the fate of a peace process. Progress in peace talks strengthens the hands of coalitions in support of an agreement, making armed tactics far less appealing or acceptable, even from the partisan perspectives. In general, the moderate political leadership’s influence increases with a peaceful settlement in prospect.
Conflict brings institutional, social, and political changes to each party; for instance, peace talks have changed the relationship between Sinn Fein (SF) (i.e., the political wing of the Provisional Irish Republican Army or the PIRA) and its paramilitary group. In fact, the eventual dissolution of the armed wing, the PIRA, became one of the conditions for a successful peace accord. As in such cases as Hezbollah, however, political representation is not always separable from military leadership. In this case, political strategies have been developed by the leadership which fully controls military structures.
The role of external actors
External actors add complexities to the inter-group relationships with their interference. Each conflict has its own dynamics, but external actors can create both an unfavorable and favorable environment for a settlement (Byrne, 2014). To prod a peace process onward, an external actor can strengthen the moderate political forces within each party. Or foreign backers might exacerbate intense fighting by supporting allied militia groups. In the current war in Yemen, the Saudi-led coalition has become the biggest obstacle to ending an internal conflict, while creating a humanitarian crisis by targeting civilian populations in violation of an international humanitarian law. When ethnic boundaries are fluid, the flow of refugees, militias, and arms across borders produces spill-over effects in otherwise stable regions (for instance, the involvement of neighboring countries such as Rwanda and Uganda in destabilizing the internal peace of the Democratic Republic of Congo).
Diverse types of conflict require different strategies for intervention. Direct intervention such as the deployment of troops might be needed to respond to a chaos created by the absence of a functioning political structure, for instance, in Somalia and Afghanistan. What needs to be followed in this type of conflict is support for the development of a political capacity to overcome factional differences as well as economic projects that provide income sources for the local populations (Pugh et al., 2016).
Humanitarian intervention is required for genocidal conflicts characterized by the collapse of legal or moral codes that lead to the disappearance of boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable human behavior. External intervention is demanded by institutional failures to prohibit atrocious behavior that releases unregulated violence. In fact, the 1995 Dayton Peace Accord could have never been produced in the absence of NATO bombing of Serb militias that were responsible for the Srebrenica massacre and other genocidal acts in Bosnia.
Conditions for transforming conflict dynamics
In controlling self-perpetuating dynamics of conflict, what must be transformed are unstable deadlock and an unsustainable escalation of hostilities. Qualitative changes in one or more dimensions of conflict produce new expectations and norms in interactions. Rules of engagement in the fight may need to be reestablished (e.g., how each side controls or responds to unwanted violence organized by extremists). For instance, during Northern Ireland’s multi-party talks in 1997, SF was temporarily barred from the peace process when its allied militant group, the PIRA, bombed shopping malls, but was allowed to re-enter the process after the cessation of PIRA terrorist attacks.
Conflict is inherently a fluid and evolving series of events; a long-lasting conflict may take on its own life, not being easily controlled by the participants. Further destruction is accompanied by a coercive struggle for unilateral advantage. As soon as violence flares up, the conflict’s stakes and expectations change, making it impossible to restore the previous status quo, as illustrated by the Israeli retaliation against Palestinian violence between 2000 and 2005. The development of uncontrollable events often leads to catastrophic casualties. Aggressive actions in a polarized environment are facilitated by the failure to control destructive forces (Atran, 2016). After a dormant period of relative calm, a new struggle can surge where the fighting ended previously, as seen in a series of armed fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.
Events converge and diverge to form a stimulus for changing the dynamics of conflict. The Arab Spring started in Tunisia following the self-immolation of a young fruit vendor that triggered mass protests (Knight, 2014). This event resulted in the formation of a democratic government along with the coalition of civil society groups in support of institutional reform. The dramatic political transformation in Tunisia triggered a yearning for democracy in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and other Arabic countries. However, resistance against the authoritarian governments turned into factional struggle that ignited civil wars in Syria and Yemen. In Egypt, elections brought a Muslim Brotherhood-led government, but their failure to appeal to broad segments of the population opened a door for a military dictatorship.
A conflict can be reescalated after the control of escalation and a subsequent prospect for deescalation (Jeong, 2008). The relationship between Iran and the U.S. had warm...
