Conflict Management and Resolution

An Introduction

Ho-Won Jeong

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781135265106
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Storia
• Categoría: Storia militare e marittima

Conflict Management and Resolution provides students with an overview of the main theories of conflict management and conflict resolution, and will equip them to respond to the complex phenomena of international conflict.

The book covers these four key concepts in detail:

• 
  
  

• negotiation
• mediation
• facilitation
• reconciliation.

It examines how to prevent, manage and eventually resolve various types of conflict that originate from inter-state and inter-group competition, and expands the existing scope of conflict management and resolution theories by examining emerging theories on the identity, power and structural dimensions of adversarial relationships. The volume is designed to enhance our understanding of effective response strategies to conflict in multiple social settings as well as violent struggles, and utilizes numerous case studies, both past and current. These include the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons programmes, the war in Lebanon, the Arab-Israeli conflict, civil wars in Africa, and ethnic conflicts in Europe and Asia.

This book will be essential reading for all students of conflict management and resolution, mediation, peacekeeping, peace and conflict studies and International Relations in general.

Ho-Won Jeong is Professor of Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, USA. He has published nine books in the field of international relations, peace and conflict studies. He is also a senior editor of the International Journal of Peace Studies.

Part I
The anatomy of conflict resolution and management

1 Perspectives on conflict resolution

Conflict is manifested through adversarial social action, involving two or more actors with the expression of differences often accompanied by intense hostilities. The conditions of scarcity (for instance, caused by soil degradation or depletion of water in river basins or lakes in Central Africa) and value incompatibilities can become a continuing source of contention. Most significantly, protracted conflict arises from the failure to manage antagonistic relationships. Despite economic difficulties and cultural diversity, South Africa and many other societies have been able to eventually overcome inter-communal rivalries and develop various types of institutions which can renegotiate opposing economic and political interests democratically.

In Switzerland, the Netherlands and other advanced democratic countries, regional and cultural divergence has not created social disruptions or armed violence. Indeed, opposing roles and positions have been harmonized and institutionally accommodated without the destruction of the social fabric. In contrast with the coexistence of multi- ethnic communities in Western Europe and North America, religious, language and racial differences have served as a means to rally various rival groups in a struggle for power and territorial gains in many other parts of the world, stretching from the Middle East, Central Asia, the Balkans, and the Caucasus to Latin America. The eruption of uncontrolled violence has cost the loss of many lives, destroyed homes and economic devastation in war- torn societies, most notably Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sri Lanka, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. In understanding conflict, we need to examine the quality of relationships that reveals the way we relate to each other socially, economically and culturally as well as how political decisions are made.

Even though conflict has been treated like an uncontrolled fight in chaotic, lawless societies (as exemplified in Somalia and Afghanistan), differences between opponents can be handled in a non- adversarial manner. In order to establish functional relationships, the solution should be found through negotiated agreements rather than resorting to violent tactics. The opposing positions can be examined for persuasion via verbal arguments.

Traditional models of settling diverse interests focus on the management of disagreement and tension within the constraints of the prevailing system. Various dispute resolution mechanisms in communities, corporations, and government agencies have been institutionalized to promote a more rule-governed society by handling complaints arising from employment relations, poor quality of services, claims over property ownership among neighbors, or opposition to development projects.

In a more destructive, large- scale conflict, deeper sources of resentment might be related to economic disparities and political oppression. The United Nations, Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe, African Union, and other regional organizations have developed conflict mitigation and management mechanisms ranging from fact-finding missions in the cases of human rights abuses or minority rights violations to good offices (designed for assistance in communication between adversarial states in support of easing tensions).

Removing misperceptions of adversaries is regarded as a vital step toward settling differences and institutionalizing a new relationship. Indeed, reduced enemy perceptions play a crucial role in initiating a collaborative process. Minimizing value incompatibilities has to touch upon reconciling a different sense of identity by acknowledging each party’s needs, intrinsic to their survival and maintenance of dignity. Most importantly, the process and outcome of negotiating different values and incompatible interests reflect not only perceptual, subjective differences but also power relations between dominant and subordinate groups.

It is essential to shed light on diverse phenomena, extending from group dynamics to structural adjustment in an adversarial social system in order to accommodate the vital interests and needs of those who have been alienated and suffered from injustice. Whereas a complex conflict has many underlying sources (both structural and psychological), it is necessary to define conflict in a specific pattern of interactions between opponents being influenced by identity differences and overarching social relations as well as power asymmetry.

One of the primary tasks of conflict resolution is to avert the recurrence of destructive conflict by qualitatively altering antagonistic relationships. Beyond responding to a few manifest, contentious issues, mutually acceptable outcomes stem from finding remedies for power imbalances and inequitable social and economic relations which are often the main source of grievances. The nature of adverse relationships needs to be transformed by supporting consensus on power sharing, enhancement of individual and group well- being as well as a guarantee of security.

A large map of conflict formation and transformation can reveal the nature of a struggle as well as the processes for changing psychological perceptions. There are wide differences among conflicts in terms of their scope and group dynamics, as is illustrated by a comparison between the guerrilla warfare in Chechnya and the nonviolent protest against brutal Chinese rule in Tibet. In transforming adversarial relationships, we need to investigate how group processes are linked to structural conditions. Inter- group relations are constrained by a superimposed political structure as well as by internal group dynamics such as rivalry between factions which take different attitudes toward conflict.

The book's objectives

This book is designed to examine how to manage and resolve conflict, in part, by shedding light on the styles and methods of communication in overcoming differences along with the efforts to minimize the harmful aspects of struggle. It is important to explore diverse modes of interpreting conflict in tandem with the illumination of different ways of tackling a range of problems arising from competitive relationships within and between societies. The manner of our societies’ response to conflict has broad implications for human wellbeing and social change. The volume treats reconciliation, along with transformation of repressive relations, as an essential part of a conflict resolution process.

Keeping the above objective in mind, this book consists of three parts. In Part I, the author presents the conceptions of conflict management, settlement and resolution as well as the examination of processes and strategies to transform conflict. Some conflicts are harder to mitigate due to a deep rooted history of animosities, institutionalization of dominant relations and difficulties in changing an entrenched system of exploitation and suppression. These themes are echoed and conceptualized in the chapters of Part II on identity, power and structure. The chapters thus cover identity formation, the effects of power in conflict outcomes, and the changes in social and political institutions needed to forge new relationships.

Part III looks at different forms of conflict settlement and resolution, ranging from adjudication to arbitration to collaborative problem solving. Various features of negotiation are illustrated by different stages of bargaining and outcomes. Negotiation between warring parties often faces challenges, creating the need for the involvement of mediators who can facilitate communication and assist in forging compromise. Facilitation is essential to initiating dialogue and promoting understanding of difficult issues which divide communities with the aim of building consensus for problem solving. Overall, the main ethos of this book is to illustrate both the past and current human endeavors to settle and resolve conflict in such a way as to enhance reconciliation and justice.

Multiple facets of conflict

Despite its application to a variety of situations, the definition of conflict has traditionally been relegated to competition for resources or other interests, value differences or dissatisfaction with basic needs. Incompatible economic and political interests develop an attempt to suppress other groups often with threats and actual use of force. The discovery of oil, uranium and other minerals in Morocco, Nigeria, and Sudan has resulted in government attempts to tightly control ethnic minorities along with the refusal of fair sharing of incomes from mineral exploitation. The growing resentment ignited armed resistance which has been followed by government retaliatory attacks on many civilians, causing destruction of properties, indiscriminate killing, rape, and other abuses which sometimes reach genocidal levels (as has recently been illustrated in Darfur, Sudan).

The perception of scarcity often worsens competitive situations by generating an even stronger desire to have access to the limited resources. The level of competition is thus affected by the availability and value of the territories or other objects sought simultaneously by rival groups. In the absence of agreeable decision-making rules and accepted norms on the conduct of behavior, the contest can turn into activities aimed at the destruction of each other.

For instance, the 1994 genocide in Rwanda can be attributed to simmering tensions which originated from competition between Hutus and Tutsis over arable land for producing coffee beans that generate a major source of export income. The rivalry has naturally grown into an attempt to control state institutions involved in decision making on the allocation of land and export income. The contest has been further fueled by exclusive ethnic ideologies alongside the colonial legacy which granted disproportionate wealth and power to minority Tutsis.

Power struggle is inevitably involved when each group attempts to impose its own language, religious or social values on other groups which have their own unique traditions and histories. As communal conflict in Sri Lanka and Kashmir for the last several decades vividly demonstrates, minority groups have a strong desire for autonomy and self-control of their destiny. In establishing or maintaining a superior status, dominant groups may discriminate against minority ethnic culture or language. Then the newly created hierarchy is used to further control subordinate religious, racial, or linguistic groups.

Regardless of wide differences in the types of relationships, “incompatibility of goals” features general characteristics of conflict (Jeong, 2008; Kriesberg, 1998; Mitchell, 2002; Rubin et al., 1994). The pursuit of different objectives leads to interference in each other’s activities to prevent an opponent from attaining what one group desires. These conditions of conflict can result in either a sustained conflict or compromise solutions unless a superior party overwhelms and subdues the other side rather quickly. A minority group may seek outright independence, but the state controlled by a majority ethnic group may oppose the aspiration and even suppress rights to ethnic language and religion. As happened to the independence of East Timor, the matter can be determined by a popular referendum after decades of struggle. In other tense conflict situations, ethnic groups made a compromise and gave up independence in return for self-rule and the guarantee of expanded political and cultural rights. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, negotiations following serious clashes and armed revolts by ethnic Albanians in Macedonia eventually gave them freedom to teach ethnic languages at various levels of academic institutions and increased political representation in the government.

In an unregulated competition, claims to scarce status, power, and resources may result in an attempt to injure or eliminate rivals (Coser, 1956). Incompatible preferences are a more acute source of tension and struggle especially when each party seeks distributive outcomes which satisfy one group’s interests at the expense of others. A competitive struggle often arises from a situation where each party’s aspirations cannot be fulfilled simultaneously. The difficulties in dealing with extremist terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda are that their actions are not motivated by obtaining specific, tangible, negotiable objectives but by broad, ideological doctrines which seek the total destruction of an enemy society (blamed for collective responsibility for the misery in Islamic societies).

In a contentious struggle, one group’s perspectives are organized around the primacy of their own interests, as each party competes for maximizing gain. In a conflict seen as zero-sum (where one’s gains become the other’s loss), one party has to be induced or forced to yield or withdraw from their quest in the competition in order to avoid serious confrontation. A power- based contest becomes the primary means to determine a winner when contentious competition turns into an unregulated fight.

Each group attaches different degrees of importance to their struggles and outcomes, developing divergent perceptions of the incompatible interests. The more desirable one party feels winning in contention, the more intense efforts the party is likely to make. Value and identity differences along with economic and social inequality create an intractable source of conflict. Beneath a struggle for territory and wealth lie pride, identity and security. Whereas emotional threat generates the fear of losing what one values, a sense of insecurity creates loyalty to one’s own group and hatred toward rival groups.

In the absence of a past history of cooperation, aggressive actions are more likely to be ignited in polarized communities where leaders develop antagonistic attitudes toward each other. A long period of conflict entrapment increases the likelihood of greater rigidity and polarization with the reinforcement of mistrust, enemy perceptions and feelings of victimization. The stereotypes of an enemy and misunderstanding of their motives justify the denial of the legitimacy of opposing claims.

The institutionalization of negative interactions is inherent in conflicts fueled by many years of accumulated hostilities. This is vividly represented by recurrent provocations and confrontations between the Sudanese government and southern provinces which seek independence. When an intense struggle permeates the social fabric with its effect on individuals and institutions, a vicious cycle of destructive struggles touches multi- faceted layers of adversarial relationships. As every aspect of social life is dominated by violence, the necessity to cope with conflict influences mundane daily decisions. For instance, Israelis (exposed to rocket and mortar fire from Gaza) have to curtail their outdoor activities while Palestinians (hit by frequent Israeli military strikes) need to look for safe shelters.

In addition, conflict preoccupies political and intellectual agendas filtered through the public domain. Even cultural and educational systems are adapted to the support of the justification of ideologies and values mobilized for the conflict. While Jewish school trips to holocaust sites in Poland are intended for the remembrance of past sufferings, they unintentionally re- traumatize the new generation and turn them into supporters of harsh government measures against Palestinians. As the quality of life further deteriorates owing to the Israeli closure of their borders, Palestinians in Gaza develop further resentment, passing it on to their children who grow up with the language of hatred and demonization of Jews.

In a deadlocked conflict rooted in historical, collective memories (of centuries of foreign occupation and war, for instance, in the Balkans), winning a conflict becomes a matter of survival. Individuals and groups are adapted to conflict realities filled with new and old animosities and prejudices against opponents. Old memories are evoked to strengthen the will to fight on regardless of continuing suffering and loss. Inter-group differentiation is made clearer by an emphasis on exclusive symbols attached to the group’s current experience and history, reflecting on a sense of legitimacy about one’s own claims and feelings of victimization. These symbols further intensify the dividing lines between us versus them.

The tensions between Unionists and Nationalists in Northern Ireland have been symbolized by the Orange Order marches which celebrate the Protestant victory over the Catholics at the Battle of the Boyne in July 1690. The migration of unemployed rural Catholics to parts of the traditional routes of the marches created controversy, as Catholics interpret the celebration as a provocation to show who is superior. Protestants regard any attempt to restrict their freedom to walk through what have been the traditional routes for centuries as a move to marginalize their Protestant identity.

The politicization of religion and other identity bases creates difficulties in reconciling different positions. In a deeply rooted power struggle, every issue becomes perceived as incompatible and non-negotiable by partisans. As differences are not regarded as reconcilable, it is difficult to moderate or change one’s behavior that is deemed necessary for bringing the fight to an end. In a total conflict, every member of an adversary group becomes a potential object of indiscriminate attacks.

Behavioral and psychological aspects of pathological conflict

In antagonistic group mobilizatio...