GST 222

INTRODUCTION TO PEACE STUDDIES AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Origin of the Word Conflict

The word Conflict is derived from the Latin word “confligere” meaning

to “strike together”.

Lexically, Conflict means

“to strike, to dasy. A fight, struggle or battle, clash,

contention, confrontation, a controversy or quarrel, active

opposition, strife or incompatibility, to meet in opposition

or hostility, to contend, to be contrary or to be at

variance”.

(Webster Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1971)

Conflict also means contradiction arising from differences in interests,

ideas, ideologies, orientations, beliefs, perceptions and tendencies.

Although, conflict is a normal, natural and inevitable phenomenon in

any interactive situation of human life. The contradictions exists at all

levels of the society – intra – psychic/personal, interpersonal, intra –

groups, inter – group, institution, intra – national and international.

Conflict is not necessarily negative in itself. It is often a by – product of

social change and may lead to constructive transformation.

Many scholars have come up with different definitions, concepts, views

or school of thoughts of conflicts from a more intellectual platform all

over the world.

Definitions of Conflict

Quicy Wright (1990:19) defines conflict as opposition among social

entities directed against one another, it distinguished from competition

defined as opposition among social entities independently striving for

something of which the supply is inadequate to satisfy all. Competitors

may not be aware of one another, while the parties to a conflict.

Two points which are directly related to conflict analysis and

management can be deduced from this definition. One is that Wright

himself notes, contrary to the old perspective which regards conflict as

national, it not inevitable, only competition can be so regarded.

Secondly, conflict and competition are two points of a continuum on

which conflict represents aggravated competition. In order words

conflict arises when disagreement emerges from competition cannot be

resolved. It follows therefore that conflict management has to begin with

and include management of supposedly ordinary competition. The other

point that can be inferred from Wright definition is that conflicts are

themselves processes that tend to degenerate from non-violent to violent

and from crisis to full-scale war.

Conflict take on a wide variety of forms and have been classified on the

basis of intensity or scale of violence, structural and character of parties

in conflict (class, ethnic, groups, religious group, racial group) and so on

and manifesting a distinct spatial character (national, regional, inter-state

or international).

However, non-violent conflict has the potential to become violent if the

regulatory mechanism is ineffective.

Wright also opines that, war is a species of conflict, thus by

understanding conflict we may learn about the probable characteristics

of war under different conditions and methods most suitable for

regulating, preventing, and winning wars”. Wright proceeds to give two

senses in which war could be understood, that is, in the legal sense, war

is considered a situation during which two or more political groups are

equally entitles to settle conflict by armed force. Whereas in the

sociological sense, which is of ordinary usage, war refers to conflicts

among political groups carried on by armed forces of considerable

magnitude.

Kriesberg (1973:17) simply defines conflict as “…… a relationship

between two or more parties who believe they have incompatible

goals”.

Stagner defines conflict as “a situation in which two or more human

beings desire goals which they perceived as being obtainable by one or

the other, but not both… each party is mobilizing energy to obtain a

goal, a desired object or situation, and each party perceives the other as a

barrier or treat to that goal”.

Ross (1993 6:xiv) notes that: “If disadvantaged groups and individuals

refuse to consider open conflict, they deny themselves what sometimes

is their most effective means for bringing about needed change”. Rose

therefore saw nothing wrong in conflict, he saw it as a natural and

inevitable human experience and as a critical mechanism by which goals

and aspirations of individual and groups are articulated, it is a channel

for the definition of creative solutions to human problems and a means

to the development of a collective identity. What Ross is to infer is that

without conflict we cannot have change.

Similarly, Laue (1990:256-7) tries to disabuse our minds about the

dysfunctional perception of conflict. He notes that:

“Conflict is not deviant, pathological, or sick behaviour

per-se. It is not the opposite of order….. There is

orderliness in conflict, although conflict can become

disorderly. And it can be a very helpful and useful part of

society”.

What to be feared is destructive conflicts (that is, conflict that have

started producing negative results) rather than conflict itself.

Action Aid (1994) and Hoivik and Meijer (1994) see conflict as

“incompatible behaviour between parties whose interests are or appear

to be, incompatible or clashing”. Two things could be taken from these

simple definitions. The first is that conflict emanates from (social)

relationships. The conflicting group must groups must reside in close

proximity whether physically or psychologically.

Causes of Conflict

As earlier mentioned, conflict is inevitable and it keeps occurring in

every individual life, either at home, at work, at social outings or even

when we sleep in our bedroom without interacting with anyone.

Although, we are familiar with those inexhaustible things that cause

conflicts, but in this context, they can be categorized into four namely:

• Conflicts over resources

• Conflicts over psychological needs

• Conflicts involving values

• Conflicts over inadequate information

Conflicts over Resources

These types of conflicts are usually easy to identify because they can be

seen and are also more potentially easy to resolve. This conflict occurs

when two or more people are competing for inadequate (or perceived to

be inadequate) resources over a period of time. The competition may

assume negative or destructive dimension when the available resources

is not evenly and judiciously distributed. The relatively deprived would

always struggle to improve their cot. This view synchronize with

Marxian theory of conflict, which posits that the more the rate of

unequal distribution of scarce resources in the society, the greater is the

basic conflict of interest between its dominant and subordinate

segments. Be also says that when practices of dominant segment create

“alienation dispositions” the more the subordinate segments of a system

become aware of their collective interest interests and question the

distribution of scarce resources, the more likely they are to join in overt

conflict against dominant segment of a system.

Conflict over Psychological Needs

Conflicts over psychological needs of groups and individuals are

conflict which cannot be seen but affect the psyche of the individual and

group self-actualization, need for individual and group respect, attempt

to project one’s group to be better than the others. With particular

reference to Maslow’s theory, he points out that when an individual

psychological need is achieved or satisfied, such an individual becomes

dominated by a drive for the other unsatisfied needs through a process

he calls “Fulfillment Progression”.

Conflict Involving Values

Contradicting value systems such as religious beliefs, ideological

positions, and general worldview is another factor responsible for social

conflict among the interacting parties. Conflict involving values are the

most difficult to understand and resolve because most times people

could die for what they believe in. According to Weaver, who likens

culture to an iceberg, he says “internal culture”, is implicitly learned and

difficult to change. That is part of culture that is below the waterline in

the iceberg analogy. It includes some of our beliefs, our values and

thought patterns, attitudes, non-verbal communication and perception.

Beliefs are interrelated and form “belief system”, which because they

are learned in life, are difficult to change.

Conflict over Information

The last but not the least of the factors causing conflict in any society is

“manipulation of information”. The pivotal role of information in

societal conflict cannot be over-emphasised, they can either be

manipulative or constructive. Especially in a widespread conflict

situation, the role of information becomes more crucial, difficult and

dangerous. When the information system in a society is tampered with

there is bound to be conflict. The information system can be tampered

with in different ways. This can be in form feeding people with lies or

giving the right information at the wrong time. In our contemporary

societies, the quantity and quality of information vary dramatically and

are dependent on wide range of factors, form level of literacy to social

cohesiveness and stability to available technology. Central to the

availability and quality of public information is the media (print, audio

and audio-visual).
Also, in a deeply divided societies, the media can also shape opinions

and decisions related to the nature and scope of conflicts, as well as the

potential alternatives to conflict, where social, political and economic

conflict have degenerated into widespread violence, the role of

information in mitigating the effects of violence or in presenting

alternatives can be crucial. Because communication is an integral part of

conflict, it comes as no surprise that those participating in organized

violence often make use of the media to attack opponents, and “spread

disinformation or misinformation” and “rally external and internal

support.”

Types of Conflict

It is important that we know types of conflict we encounter in our day to

day activities. There are numerous kinds of conflicts but we will limit

ourselves to the following:

a. Intra-Personal Conflicts

The type of conflict that occur within an individual. Examples of such

are use of time, choice of partner, moral questions, goals and aspiration.

b. Inter-Personal Conflict

Conflict between two or more individuals over an issue.

c. Intra-Group Conflicts

Conflicts between individuals, or faction within a group.

d. Inter-Group Conflicts

Conflicts between groups such as club, class versus class, family versus

family.

e. National Conflicts

Conflicts within a nation, involving different groups within the nation.

This could be interethnic, inter-religious, or competition for resources.

f. International Conflict

Conflicts between nations. This could be for ideological reasons,

territorial claims, political competition.

Classification of Conflict

Ted Robert Gurr, in his article A Comparative of Civil Strife and Quincy

Wright in his paper The Nature of Conflict tightly argue that the Level

of violence rather than its absence or presence is a better criterion for

classifying conflicts.

Wright for example distinguishes between

(a) “Ordinary” conflict which involves small-scale violence usually at the individual and
group levels and
(b) War, which is carried out by armed forces and involves violence of

considerable magnitude.

Similarly, Gurr distinguishes between “turmoil” which includes both

non-violent and small-scale violent conflict and rebellion or internal

war. The point in this later classification is that notwithstanding their

peculiarities, conflict differs largely in degree rather than kind and

should therefore be analysed in terms of continuum which has violent

conflict at one end and violent ones at the other. This enables us to pay

close attention to the possible escalation or worsening of conflicts,

sometimes a simple non-violent/violent classification appears to shade

over.

Another popular classification categorises conflict into structural and

non-structural conflicts. Structural conflicts which tend to be endemic

are those which are predisposed by the innate character of the polity.
Typically, the result from “unjust repressive and oppressive

sociopolitical structure”. Structural factors also include inequality

among groups in obtaining access to socioeconomic and political

privileges and benefits such as education, income distribution,

unemployment, and control of political power, as well as low levels of

national integration which encourage “Zero-sum” context for state

power.

CONFLICT THEORIES (SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE)

INTRODUCTION

In this unit, the theories and empirical studies conducted by scholars or

researchers in the area of social conflicts will be discussed in order to

have comprehensive understanding of the various school of thoughts and

their diverse views and opinions. The rationale for the study of these

theories is to enable students identify the strengths and weakness of the

previous work done in the past in relation to the contemporary issues of

social conflicts that have become protracted till now and with arrays of

various emerging conflicts at all levels of the society the world over.

Conflict Theories from Sociological Perspective

Karl Marx Theory

Marx the great social philosopher opines that the degree of inequality in

the distribution of resources generates inherent conflicts of interest. He

explains that contradiction in capitalist modes of economic production

and how these would lead to conflict processes that would usher in

communism via a revolutionary action that would be carried out by the

proletariats (the ruled). Although, his predictions were wrong, perhaps

because of some fatal errors in his logic, but his analysis is still very

much useful, applicable and relevant to most of the conflicts being

experienced the world over.

Karl Marx views that the more the rate or degree of inequality in the

distribution of the relatively available or the scarce resources in the

society, the greater is the basic conflict of interest between its dominant

and subordinate segments. The more the subordinate segments

(proletariat) become aware of their true collective interests, the more

likely they are to question the legitimacy of the existing pattern of

distribution or allocation of scarce resources. Also the subordinates are

more likely to become aware of their true collective interest when

changes wrought by dominant segments disrupt existing relations among

subordinates, practices of dominant segments create “alienative

dispositions”, members of subordinate segments can communicate their

grievances to one another, which, in turn, is facilitated by the ecological

concentration among members of subordinate groups, and the expansion

of educational opportunities for members of subordinate group.

Marx also exerts that the more the subordinate segments at a system

become aware of their collective interests and question the legitimacy of

the distribution of scarce resources, the more likely they are to join in

overt conflict against dominant segments of a system. The greater is the

ideological unification of members of subordinate segment of a system

and the more developed is their political leadership structure, the more

likely are the interests and relations between dominant and subjugated

segments of a society to become polarized and irreconcilable. The more

polarized are the dominant and subjugated, the more will the conflict be

violent. The more violent is the conflict, the greater is the amount of

structural change within a society and the greater is the redistribution of

scarce resources.

Max Weber Theory

Weber sees conflict as highly contingent on the emergence of

“Charismatic Leaders” who could mobilize subordinates. He opined that

subordinates are more likely to pursue conflict with super ordinates

when they withdraw legitimacy from political authority when the

correlation among members in class, status group, and political

hierarchies is high, the discontinuity or degrees of inequality in the

resource distribution within social hierarchies is high and when of social

mobility up social hierarchies of power, prestige, and wealth are low.

Conflict between super ordinates and subordinates becomes more likely

when charismatic leaders can mobilize resentments of subordinates.

When charismatic leaders are successful in conflict, pressure mounts to

routinise authority through new systems of rules and administration. As

a system of rules and administrative authority is imposed, the more

likely are new subordinates to withdraw legitimacy from political

authority and to pursue conflict with the new super ordinates, especially

when new traditional and ascriptive forms of political domination are

imposed by elites.

Conflict – Theory Model of Dahrendorf

Dahrendorf (1958) introduces to the theory of conflict the view of

productive and constructive conflict. He sees conflict as necessary for

achieving an end in the society or for realization of social goals. He

holds that social conflict produces change in the system which is

necessary and good. Dahrendorf’s attempt was to determine a systematic

locus and a specific framework for a theory of conflict in sociological

analysis. He contends for two different kinds of struggles in an

organization. He calls them “Exogenous” and “Endogenous” conflicts.

The endogenous conflict is the conflict that is generated with the

organization, system or a society. In this, he agreed with Marx that

internal conflict comes from the present social structure. He went

beyond the internal dynamics of conflict to allow for external factors,

which he called exogenous conflict. This also influences social change.

In order words, exogenous conflict is brought upon or into a system

from the outside. The theory asserts that certain conflicts are based on

certain social structural arrangements and hence are bound to arise

whenever such structural arrangements are given.

Furthermore, the dichotomy of social roles within imperatively

coordinated groups, and the division into positive and negative

dominance riles are fails of social structure. Here are the assumptions

for the structural arrangement which could lead to conflict as

Dahrendorf presents in his conflict theory model.

• In every imperatively coordinated group, the carriers of positive

(status quo) and the negative (change of status quo) dominant

roles determined two quasi-groups with opposite latent interest.

• The bearers of positive and negative dominant roles organize

themselves into groups with manifest interests unless certain

empirically variable conditions intervene.

• Interest groups which originate in this manner are in constant

conflict concerned with the preservation or change in the status

quo.

• The conflict among interest groups in the sense of this model

leads to changes in the structure of the social relations in question

through changes in the dominant relations.

Pluralist Perspective of Conflict

The advocates of the pluralist school of thought such as Hugh Clegg el

al, holds a different view about conflict. The school views conflict as

having a CONSTRUCTIVE contribution towards what is defined as

healthy industrial order. Thus, given the appropriate institutions of

regulation, the overt and active manifestation of conflict resolves

discontent, reduces tension, clarifies power relation and adjusts the

industrial structure. Accordingly, it creates as many solidarity groups as

it devices and re-embodies the principles of self-determination.

The pluralist school emerged as a criticism to the political doctrine of

SOVEREIGNTY, the notion that in an independent political system,

there must be a final authority whose decision is supreme. Contrary to

this assumption, the pluralists believed that within any political system,

there are groups with their own interests and beliefs and the government

itself depends on their consent, loyalty and cooperation to survive.

Rather than existence of a definitive decision by final authorities, this

theory contends that there are instead ONLY continuous (conflicts,

antagonisms) and compromises.

In essence, a plural social or industrial relation has to accommodate

different and divergent pressure groups in order to ensure that the

differing group interests are harmonized such that social and political
changes take place peacefully. Thus, to the pluralists, same is achievable

through continuous negotiation, concession and compromises within and

among these pressure (interest) groups and between the authorities.

Given these backgrounds, and based on expositions of the functionalist

and the pluralist schools, and their identification of the place of effective

communication in the prevention and management of industrial

conflicts, as evident on the need for clear communication,

understanding, continuous dialogues, negotiation, concession and

compromises within and among the differing groups in the work place,

institution or society.

Structural – Functional Theory

Talcott Parson (1960) champions the course of this theory after the

World War II. The structural functionalist asserted/projected that

individual will adjust to a given structure in an organization institution

or society. Any change in the structure of the organization or institution

causes conflict and it destabilizes the organization. Conflict should then

be minimized in order to maintain stability with both individual as well

as the institutions. The theory reflects a system approach where each

part has one or more functions to perform. The theory sees conflict as

dysfunctional, abnormal, and a disease which can be endemic to a

society. It focuses on things that will maintain the state of equilibrium

and collaboration in the organization.

The Theory of Structural Balance

Helder (1958) in this theory states that Ego tends to like whom his

friend likes, but dislike whom his enemy likes. Also Ego tends to dislike

whom he dislikes, and likes whom his enemy dislikes. This non-rational
approach to theory of conflict has the following assumptions according

to Mazur, (1968):

1. For any three persons or groups, there are four trials: like –

dislike, support – conflict, conformity – divergence, and positive

identity – negative identity. All these tend to balance.

2. Within any triad, an increase in magnitude of one sign leads to an

increase in magnitude of all signs.

3. Relationship of like, support, conformity, and positive identity

tend to coincide. On the other hand, the relationship of dislike,

conflict, divergence and negative identity tend to coincide. The

tendency increases with increasing intensity of the signs, and

consonant relationship increase together. Assumption on Ethnicity and Conflict

According to Person, Novak, and Gleason (1982:1), the word “ethnic”

was derived via Latin from the Greek ethnos, which means nation or

race. Ethnicity has been viewed since the earliest times in terms of a

group setting associated with the idea of nationhood. But in recent years,

the instrumentalists’ view of ethnicity and ethnic conflicts in Africa and

the rest of the world hold that “ethnicity is not a natural cultural residue

but a consciously crafted ideological creation”, ethnic conflicts result

from the manipulations of the (radical) elite who incite and distort

ethnic/nationalist consciousness into an instrument to pursue their

personal ambitions.

The problem with the theory despite the fact that it contains some

validity, it almost ignores completely the core motives and elements in

ethnic conflicts such as the roles of fear and group psychology and

importance of symbolic controversies which are often less

comprehensible to the “outsider”.

Thomson (2000:58) defines an ethnic group as “a community of people

who have the conviction that they have a common identity and common

fate based on issues of origin, kinship, ties, traditions, cultural

uniqueness, a shared history and possibly a shared Language”.

Toland (1993:3) basically agrees with Thomson in her conception of an

ethnic group, but takes it one step further by adding a sense of longing

on the individual level: “…(ethnicity is) the sense of people- hood held

by members of a group sharing a common culture and history within a

society.

Bamass R. argues the assumption “ethnicity and nationalism are not

‘givens’, but are social and political constructions. They are the

creations of elites, who draw upon distorted and sometimes fabricated

materials from the cultures of the groups they wish to represent in order

to protect their wellbeing or existence or to gain political and economic

advantage for their groups as well as for themselves… this process

invariably involves competition and conflict for political power,

economic benefits, and social status between the political elite, class,

and leadership groups both within and among different ethnic

categories” (Kruger 1993: 11).

In the light of the discussion above, it is important to note that mere

differences in values or regional development, or between ethnic groups

for that matter, do not as such promote ethnicity and ethnic conflict,

according to Kruger (1993:12). Quoting Brass, he states “… Ethnic selfconsciousness, ethnically

based demands, and ethnic conflict can occur

if there is some conflict either between indigenous and external elites

and authorities or between indigenous elites”.

Nevertheless, the assumption on ethnicity and conflict therefore, states

that, “ethnic identity has a symbolic dimension which makes conflict

arising from it more intense than otherwise. Ethnicity has the symbolic

capability of defining for individual the totality of his existence

including embody his hopes, fears and sense of the future. Any action or

thought that is perceived t undermine the ethnic group which include

those that diminish its status in the eyes of the members evokes very

hostile and some times violent response”. An aggressive and murderous

ethnic militia man may even believe that his very existence is threatened

by the perceived injury to his ethnic group. Similarly, a poor villager

believes that a cabinet minister from his village represents his own

interest and share of the national cake even though he may never receive

any personal material reward as a result of the appointment.

Assumption on Culture and Conflict

Culture simply means the sum-total of all human existence which

comprises norms, values, traditions, beliefs, customs, languages,

patterns of behaviours, art music, food, mode of dressing and so on.

Cultures have been delineated along a number of dimensions by various

writers such as:

Glen Fisher, in an interesting book called MINDSETS and in his chapter

in Weaver’s book (1998:140) characterizes two kinds of societies: those

based on achievement and those on ascription. Those described as

“achievement” emphasize doing, in contrast to being, which describes

“ascriptive” societies. The former value change and action, whereas the

latter value stability and harmony.

Weaver (1998:72-74) likens culture to an iceberg, in which only the tip

is seen above the water line. The part that is obvious is the External

Culture, which is explicitly learned, is conscious and more easily

changed. The External Culture includes many of the elements that we

normally think of as “Culture”: music, literature, drama, foods, dress,

customs, and verbal communications. These are all aspects of

“behaviour”. External Culture may also include some of our beliefs,

such as religion and explicit ethnics.

These aspects of culture are all obvious to a newcomer. However, there

is also an Internal Culture, which is implicitly learned and difficult to

change. That is the part which is below the waterline in the iceberg

analogy. It includes some of our beliefs, our values and thought patterns,

attitudes, nonverbal communication, and perceptions. Beliefs are

interrelated and form “belief system”, which because they are learned

early in life, are difficult to change. It is also very difficult to perceive

and fully understand the Internal Culture of someone from a different

group. Yet it is this part of culture that defines who we are and what

really is important to us. Because we are often unaware of these

elements it is difficult to articulate them to others, even to those whom

we love. And we most unlikely to expose our inner-selves to someone

with whom we are in conflict.

Geert Hofstede (In Weaver 1998:148-158) describes four dimensions by

which he placed a number of societies on graphs. Two are particularly

relevant on conflict transformation (p.149):

1. Power distance – defines the extent to which the less powerful

person in a society accepts inequality in power and considers it

normal. All societies are unequal, but some are more unequal

than others.

2. Individualism – opposes collectivism (in the anthropological

sense). Individualist cultures assume individuals look primarily

after their own interest and those of their immediate family.

Collectivist cultures assume that individuals – through birth and

possibly later events – belong to one or more close “in-groups”

from which they cannot detach themselves. A collectivist society

is tightly integrated; an individualist society is loosely integrated.

Hofstede characterizes American and Northern European societies as

generally having low power distance and high individualism. Many

African and Latin American societies have large power distance and low

individualism. Some of the Southern European societies are in the

middle with large power distance and medium individualism.

John Paul Lederach, probably one of the best known theorists and

practitioners in the field of conflict transformation today, posits that

“social conflict emerges and develops on the basis of the meaning and

interpretation people involved attach to action and events. Social

meaning is lodged in the accumulated knowledge, i.e. a person’s bank of

knowledge” (1995:8). Conflict is related to meaning, meaning to

knowledge, and knowledge is rooted in culture. People act on the basis

of the meaning that things have for them. The symbolic interactionist,

Herbert Blummer (1969) emphasizes the importance of symbols and

meanings attach to them. Therefore, Ladarach’s assumptions (1995:9-

10) can simply be liberally summarized as follows:

1. Social conflict is a natural, common experience present in all

relationships and cultures.

2. Conflict is a socially constructed cultural event, people active

participants in creating situations and interactions they experience

as conflict.

3. Conflict emerges through an interactive process based on the

search for and creation of shared meaning.

4. The interactive process is accomplished through and rooted in

people’s perceptions, interpretations, expressions, and intentions,

each of which grows from the cycles back to their common sense

knowledge.

5. Meaning occurs as people locate themselves and social “things”

such as situations, events, and actions in their accumulated

knowledge. A person’s common sense and accumulated

experience and knowledge are the primary basis of how he

creates, understands and responds to conflict.

6. Culture is rooted in the shared knowledge and schemes created

and used by a set of people for perceiving interpreting, expressing

and responding to social realities around them.

However the term “culture” is often linked with ethnicity, as both the

external and internal cultures are often determined by our ethnic groups,

along with influences from the larger world through socialization,

education, the media and exposure to a different way of thinking and

behaving. We talk about “the culture of violence”, “the culture peace”,

“the culture of poverty”, “the culture of corruption”, “corporate culture”

and so on as they pervade different societies in various or different

forms.

The Role Theories of Turner

Role is defined as that set of activities associated with any given

position in an organization, which include potential behaviours in that

position, and not only those of the incumbent in question. Although

Turner accepts a process orientation, he was committed to developing

interactionism into “something akin to axiomatic theory”. He recognized

that role theory was segmented into a series of narrow propositions and

hypotheses and that role theorist had been reluctant “to find unifying

themes to link various role processes”.

Turner’s strategy was to use propositions from the numerous research

studies to build more formal and abstract theoretical statements. He

therefore, sought series of statements that highlight what tends to occur

in the normal operation systems of interaction. To this end, Turner

provided a long list of main tendency propositions on (a) roles as they

emerge, (b) roles as an interactive framework, (c) roles in relation to

actors, (d) roles in societal settings, (e) roles in organizational settings,

and (f) roles and the person. The most important of these propositions to

this study will be examined, which are this:

Role as an Interactive Framework

1. The establishment and persistence of interaction tend to depend

on the emergence and identification of ego and alter roles.

2. Each role tends to form as a comprehensive way of coping with

one or more relevant alters roles.

3. There is a tendency for stabilized roles to be assigned the

character of legitimate expectations and to be seen as the

appropriate way to behave in a situation. (Tendency for

legitimate expectations).

In these three additional propositions, interaction is seen as depending

on the identification of roles. Moreover, roles tend to be complements of

others as in parent/child, boss/employee roles – and this operate to

regularize interaction among complementary roles.

Role in Societal Settings

1. Similar roles in different contexts tend to become merged, so they

are identified as a single role recurring in different relationships.

(Tendency for economy of roles).

2. To the extent that roles refer to more general social contexts and

situations differentiation tends to link roles to social values.

(Tendency for value anchorage).

3. The individual in the society tends to be assigned and to assume

roles consistent with one another. (Tendency for allocation

consistency).

Many roles are identified, assumed, and imputed in relation to a broader

societal context. Turner first argued that people tend to group behaviors

in different social context into as few unifying roles as is possible or

practical. This people will identify a role as a way of making sense of

disparate behaviors in different contexts. At the societal level, values are

the equivalent of goals in organizational settings for identifying,

differentiating, allocating, evaluating, and legitimating roles. Finally all

people tend to assume multiple that are consistent with one another.

Role of business in Conflict Situations

Widening communities of business actors around the world is moving to

adopt new approaches to corporate social responsibilities, and a “triple

bottom line” of profitability, social and environmental responsibilities.

Under the right conditions, the private sector may be able to help

prevent violent conflict. Like public and aid supported investments, the

private sectors needs to be guided by an informed commitment to guard

against side effects of its investments which may have negative impacts

on the “structural stability” of the local and national host society, and

plan for ways in which it can ensure the maximum positive benefits.

Business – local, small and medium – sized enterprises, multinationals

and large national companies – can play a useful role in conflict

situations. Conflict implies higher risks and costs for businesses, and it

is therefore, in the interest of most businesses to support efforts that

prevent, resolve or avoid exacerbating conflicts. It thus becomes

imperative for each and every business enterprises/organizations to

support peace making and peace building activities. It is only under a

peaceful atmosphere and environment that the “corporate culture” of any

organization could be accomplished. Challenges include how to:

• Develop a sufficiently long – term perspective to promote

sustainable development and help reduce conflict, and strike a

balance between long–term thinking and short–term investment

horizons, with the need for quick returns in unstable situations.

• Understand the roles of some trade actors or networks in causing

or exacerbating conflict – in particular in extractive industries

(diamond, oil, forest products, etc.) that are major sources of

revenue for warring parties and arms sellers.

• Encourage big business to stimulate local development, job

creation and basic social infrastructure, especially in remote

areas. This can contribute to long – term social stability and

improved local livelihoods.

• Link the social investment programmes that are sometime

supported by companies, in particular in the health or education

sectors, to wider development and conflict concerns.

• Harness the potential role of companies as powerful players who

could use their influence positively on political actors not only to

negotiate immediate conditions for their investments but also to

avert violent conflicts.

• Ensure that the use by companies of public security agents and

military personnel to secure installations and protect staff is not at

the expense of the local population, and that illegitimate armed

groups or the youth are not being inadvertently supported or

financed by them.

CONFLICT THEORIES (PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE)

INTRODUCTION

In this unit, we shall examine some conflict theories from psychological

points of view. This is important because it will enable us to have a clear

understanding of the influence of psychological human needs on

individual behavior and how inability or failure of such an individual to

ignore or suppress growth or developmental needs can lead to conflict.

Nevertheless, the core of this unit examines how effective and poor

communication management can bring about peaceful co-existence

among people living in a society or promote mistrust and conflict

Psychological Perspective of Conflict Theories

ABRAHAM MASLOW’S THEORY

Maslow proposes an interesting theory concerning human needs and

their effect upon human behavior. He suggested that human needs may

be classified into five different groups or classes:

1. Physiological Needs

These are basic needs of the organism such as food, water, oxygen and

sleep. They also include the somewhat less basic needs such as sex or

activity.

2. Safety Needs

Maslow is referring to the needs of a person for a generally ordered

existence in a stable environment which is relatively free of threats to

the safety of the person’s existence.

3. Social Needs

These are the needs for affectionate relation with other individual and

needs for one to have a recognized place as a group member – the need

to be accepted by one’s peers.

4. Esteem Needs

The need of a stable firmly based self evaluation. The need for self

respect, self esteem and for esteem of others.

5. Needs for Self Actualization

The need for self-fulfillment. The need to achieve ones full capacity.

The important thing about Maslow’s theory, however is the hierarchy of

need structure. That is, it proceeds from basic needs to cluster social

needs. Porter (1961) researched on Maslow’s model and defined need

fulfillment as the difference between how much there should be, and
how much that is now connected with management positions. The

fulfillment stood for those factors that affected job/human satisfaction

most.

According to Maslow, the starting point for motivation theory is the so

called physiological needs. When one is achieved or satisfied, an

individual becomes dominated by a drive for the other unsatisfied needs

through a process he calls “Fulfillment Progression”.

Burton’s Human Needs Theory

Burton’s human needs theory comes closest to providing an inclusive

explanation of the spectrum of motives which under girds African

conflicts.

Human needs theory of conflict begins with the hypothesis that in

addition to obvious biological needs of food and shelter, there are basic

socio-psychological human needs that relate to growth and development.

Such needs include needs for identity, security, recognition,

participation and autonomy. Conflicts result from ignoring or

suppressing such developmental needs which “must be satisfied and

catered for by institutions, if these institutions are to be stable, and

societies are to be significantly free of conflicts”.

Human needs theory discounts explanatory models of conflicts that fault

the innate sinfulness and rejects mechanistic perspectives that tends to

view the individual as infinitely malleable biologically; “there are limits

to the extent to which the human person, acting separately or within a

wider ethnic or national community can be socialized or manipulated”.

This view echoes John Stuart Mill’s earlier contention that:

Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do

exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and

develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of inward forces

which make it a living thing (emphasis added).

Given this limitation on the malleability of the individual, deep-rooted

conflicts arise out of demands on individuals and groups to make certain

adjustments in behaviors that are unacceptable and probably beyond

human tolerance and capabilities. For whereas the individual is

responsive to opportunities for improvement in life-style, and in this

sense malleable, there is no malleability in acceptance of denial of

ontological needs such as security, recognition, participation, autonomy

and dignity.

Consequently, any political system that denies or suppresses these

human needs must eventually generate protest and conflict. Hence, if we

want to go beyond the mere and ultimately ineffectual containment of

“dissident” behavior symptomatic of deep-rooted conflicts, we need

alterations in norms, institutions and policies to bring adjustment within

the range of human acceptability and capability.

The Concept of Communication

The concept of “communication” is broad and rich with meaning. As a

basic social process, communication is the means by which people relate

to each other. It is a human process. Through various channels or media,

this process can take place over great distance and over time. It is a

shared process, involving five elements namely – 1. Sender (also known as the speak/sender), 2.
Message (also known as encoding, meaning the sender sends encoded message),

3. Channel (the medium to which the message is sent), 4. Receiver (decoder) and 5. Feedback
(the outcome of the decoded message).
The sender constructs a message, which he hopes will stimulate a certain

kind of response in the receiver. This message is shared through a

channel. The receiver is equally active in the process, giving meaning to

the message when – and if it is received. This receiver sends feedback to

the sender. This feedback helps the sender to know if the message had

been received and how it has been understood. Communication cannot

be a one – way process. Messages are not “magic bullets” which knock

over “target audiences”.

The Communication Process

Sender…………….Message………………Receiver

Channel

Feedback

Some common communication terms

Audience – A specific group of people with whom we wish to

communicate with or pass information about something to.

Message – These are signs and symbols of many kinds designed to

stimulate a certain kind of response in a receiver.

Channels – These are the media, which connect peoples making

communication possible. Channels include the great mass

media (audio, visual and prints) small group discussion,

oral literature, meetings at the village square etc.

Sender(encoder) – Is an individual that constructs a message and then send to

intended receiver.

Receiver (decoder)– Is someone or a group of people that a message is targeted

at, and who in return sends feedback to the sender after

reading meaning to it.

Feedback – Is decoded message that helps the sender to know if the

message had been received and how it has been

understood.

Medium of communication that are capable of causing conflict or resolving crises

* Writing: written words may promote conflict at the same time, resolve conflict.

* Singing: songs are capable of promoting conflicts at the same time, resolve conflict.

* Speaking: words we speak can spark conflict/resolve conflict

* Drawing or gesture: inscriptions or negative cartoons on walls, books etc may cause or resolve
conflicts.

ELEMENTS OF COMMUNICATION PROCESS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON CONFLICT

* The stimulus: this is the first element that triggers one’s reaction

* The source: this is also known as the sender, the encoder or transmitter. Most times the
stimulus directs the initiator stupidly and that may emanate into conflict.

* Message: this refers to information thought, attitudes, intention or needs

* Medium: meaning the medium to which these messages were applied and the feedback eg
human(amaibu) person-to-person, face-too-face, written, phones etc.

* Channel: meaning from what point to which point? In other words, how many people
perceived these messages between the encoder and the decoder.

* Feedback: the reaction/output of the decoder.

* Noise: noise triggers breakdown of law and order.

According to Oyeleye (1997) in a paper presented on “Development of

Effective Communication Techniques in the Local Government

Workers”, he submits that communication is the sharing of messages,

ideas, etc, among participants; it is not restricted to the use of words

alone. It includes all means such as signs and symbols by which

meanings are covered from one person to another. For example, silence

is a means of communication in the sense that it coveys meanings.

Oyeleye opines that “Information is the content of communication”.

Information tends to be abstract, formal and impersonal. When feelings

and other human elements are added to the transmission of information,

it is called communication. Depending upon the situation, these

elements help or hinder the understanding of information by others.

Similarly, psychologists have also been interested on communication.

They emphasize human problems occur in the communication process

of initiation, transmitting and receiving information. They have focused

on the identification of barriers to good communication, especially those

that involve the interpersonal relationships of people.

Much as we might be thinking that communication may be crucial to

conflict management, it has therefore been given further impetus that

most human problems, societal conflicts and invariably, industrial

relation, problems had been traced to communication problems and the

more reason why many SOCIOLOGISTS, INFORMATION

THEORIST as well as PSYCHOLOGISTS have concentrated more on

the study of communication.

DYNAMICS OF CONFLICT

INTRODUCTION

To a novice in the field of peace studies and conflict resolution, conflict

is usually perceived or seen as something negative that be avoided,

ignored or taught about. Although due to our individual differences,

conflict is an inevitable and recurrent fact of life. We should therefore

develop our understanding of conflict and its positive management.

The Chinese do not see conflict as negative in their language; conflict

means “an opportunity or chance for change as well as risk or danger”.

Therefore, conflict is neither positive nor negative but how it turns out to

be is determined by our response which is a function of our perception,

attitude, background and the environments. Knowing the root causes of

conflicts does not automatically proffer solution or clue on how to

prevent or resolve them, as the inherent dynamic of conflicts tend to

give them a Life of their own. Conflict tends to emerge/evolve in a

cyclical pattern, often with several vicious cycles that are closely

entertained. Even a removal of the original problems may not guarantee

an end to a conflict, as addition been generated by the conflict itself.

However, having a positive approach to conflict help one to manage it in

constructive manner with positive results while people with negative

connotation of conflict tend to handle conflicts in a destructive way with

negative effects.

Each conflict situation contains certain predictable elements and

dynamics that are amendable to regulation and change. There are two

key propelling variables in conflict (escalation) cycle: OPPORTUNITY

and WILLINGNESS.

Opportunity

This has to do with the available resources at the disposal of a person,

group or a country such as money, people, arms, land, minerals, good

organization, and external support and so on.

Willingness

Is the desire or need to act. This is a situation whereby a group of people

are determined and convinced to embark on an action aimed at changing

their situation irrespective of the likely consequences.

Both the opportunity and willingness are complimentary in nature in the

sense that one may have the means to act but may not be willing to do so

or the willingness to act may be there but the means is lacking. In the

light of the above, for conflict to move from one stage to the other, both

must be present because they are dependent on each other.

Stages of Conflict/Conflict Cycle

Conflict tend to progress from one place to another when the

stakeholders (the oppressed and the oppressor) become more aware of a

conflict of interest, means to act and then mobilize to alter the prevailing

situation to each group advantage. In the course of altering the situation

or addressing the injustice being faced by the oppressed, a sporadic

violence can erupt if either parties should fail to adopt positive approach

of conflict management.

Stages of Conflict

The following are the various stages of conflicts emerging in different

parts of the world

A. The Formation Stage

This is the first stage of conflict whereby a problem emerges and acts or

things, or situations that were previously ignored or taken for granted

now turn to serious issues. The obvious antagonistic shifts in attitude

and a behaviour patterns is a clear indication of the early warning signs

of conflict formation which need to be addressed if further escalation is

to be avoided.

B. The Escalation Stage

This stage is characterized by the formation of enemy images. People

begin to take sides, positions harden, communication stops, perception

becomes distorted and parties begin to commit resources to defend their

position, leaders begin to make inflammatory public statements

regarding their positions and street demonstrations intensity.

C. The Crisis Stage

At this stage, parties in conflict now begin to use physical barricades to

demarcate their territories. Attempts to defend or expand territories or

interests lead to direct confrontation and eruption of violence.

Stockpiled weapons or arms are now freely used in an attempt to

dominate or have upper hand leading to breakdown of Law and order

and essential. Services are virtually disrupted and people begin to

experience discomfort due to lack of water, food, electricity and other

essential goods and services.

D. De-escalation Stage

This is the stage at which parties in conflict begin to experience gradual

cessation of hostility arising from conflict weariness, hunger, sanctions

or external intervention.

E. Improvement Stage

At this stage, stakeholders begin to have a rethink, shift ground and

needs for dialogue are recognized and efforts are made towards attaining

relative peace.

F. Transformation Stage

All causes of conflicts have been removed at this stage and

reconciliation has occurred. This stage is the most difficult stage to

attain in any conflict situation, though desirable, attainable and

accomplishable.

Conflict Cycle

Conflict cycle simply means the stages or process by which a conflict emerges, grows and
ultimately resolves itself.

i. Latent Phase

This is the first phase of the conflict cycle where a conflict is dormant

and barely expressed by the conflicting sides that may not even be

conscious of their conflicting interests or values. At this phase, a conflict

can easily be “nipped in the bud” through a preventive action on the

basis of early warning in principle. Although, latent conflicts are

difficult to detect with any degree of certainty – and their presence and

absence may be hard to verify. Despite that, we can still identify various

indicators of impending conflicts, such as inequality, growing poverty,

frustrated expectation, unemployment, pollution and a growing tendency

to view problems in “us versus them – terms” etc.

ii. Manifest Phase

At this phase, conflicting parties express their demands and grievances

openly, but only by legal means. It is easier to identify both problems

and stakeholders, at this stage while preventive action can still be taken

to prevent conflict escalation or degeneration into violent confrontation.

Despite limited time available, exhibit conflict behaviour and regroup

themselves in opposing camps. Mediation efforts geared towards

compromise solutions still stand a reasonable chance of success

provided violence has not occurred.

iii. Violent Phase

This phase is characterized by direct physical attacks and confrontations

leading to spilling of blood and loss of life of both conflicting parties

and innocent people and thereby produce additional motives for struggle

elongation, if only to “get even” or escape retribution for atrocities

committed. Moreover, people having their various private agendas and

that are personally benefiting or profiting from the continuing crisis

often usurped the initial/existing leadership structure in order to have

influence and control over their groups.

iv. Escalation Phase

Under this phase, violence breeds further violence, producing an

escalatory momentum. Moreover, the longer the struggle has lasted, and

the more destructive it has been, the more do the warring parties (and

especially their leaders) have to lose by laying down their arms. Only

victory can justify the preceding bloodshed, hence the proclivity to

struggle on as long as there is even a slight hope of prevailing, thereby

attaining the power to set the terms. Neither the violence nor the

escalation phases therefore leave much scope for peaceful intervention,

mediation or negotiations. On the other, embarking on military

intervention at this stage could be regarded as a risky enterprise despite

the fact that it might make a difference.

v. Contained Phase

It is a stage at which escalation comes to a halt, which could be due to

the fact that the conflicting parties have temporarily exhausted their

supply of weaponry, leading to lower intensity. At this stage, there

appears hope for negotiations and mediation efforts by the intervention

of a third party aiming towards a truce. Most times peacekeeping forces

can be introduced to protect each side against the possible breaches of

the truce by either of the conflicting parties. The truce agreed upon

allows for the provision of humanitarian aid to the civilian victims

without supporting either of the warring sides.

vi. Mitigated Phase

Mitigated stage of any conflict is the period during which the basic

causes of conflict remain in place, but the conflict behaviour and attitude

has been significantly changed with reduced or less violence and more

political mobilization and negotiation. At this stage, the ray of postconflict recovery can easily be
read and felt in the minds of political

leaders on opposing sides, while external factors are at the advantage of

gaining new leverage, that is, serving as potential (but not

unconditional) provider of aid.

vii. The Resolution Phase

This phase is the most perceived critical stage of all the phases, as

success or failure of “post-conflict peace-building will determine

whether the conflict will flare up again. For a tangible and enduring or

sustainable success to be accomplished, both the underlying causes of

the conflict and its immediate consequences must be addressed. This

include, reordering of power relationships, bringing some of those

responsible for the preceding blood shed to trial and facilitating

reconciliation between the opposing sides as a precondition of future

coexistence. At this stage, the importance of external actors is very

crucial in the following areas such as provision of various forms of

assistance and support to the emerging civil society after the resolution

of the conflict, and to support programmes for disarmament,

demobilization and reintegration of former combatants, including child

soldiers.

CONFLICT ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

It is an established fact that conflict exist at all levels of human

interaction either at interpersonal, intra-group, inter group or at

communal, national and international levels. Therefore, it has become

imperative for a conflict management practitioner, intervener or a peace

studies and conflict resolution student to acquire necessary knowledge

and skills required to enable such a person gain an insight into the

hidden issues in conflict. The issues ranging from the causes of the

conflict, stages/phases of conflict, the stakeholders (parties in conflict),

and the conflict analytical tools and techniques necessary for proper

understanding of conflict analysis in view of proffering sustainable

solution to the conflict. Analysis is usually accompanied by “conflict

mapping” and “tracking” both of which are very important at giving the

conflict management practitioner a clear picture of what is happening,

what is at stake and what could be done to manage the “difficult”

situation.

Definition of Conflict Analysis

Conflict analysis is a critical review, interpretation and explanation of

what is observed and recorded about the conflict situation. Or

A process by which the root causes, dynamics, issues, and – other –

fundamentals of conflict are examined, reviewed and unraveled through

the use of various mechanisms for proper and better – understanding of

the conflict from several perspectives.

Conflict analysis enables peace expert intervening in a conflict the

opportunity of gathering necessary data or information that will facilitate

easy bringing together of parties in dispute and reveal a dependable,

reliable and effective direction on the choice of strategies and action to

be adopted for a successful intervention and termination of conflict.

Definition of Stakeholder

A stakeholder is defined as those men and women, group or parties who

are directly or indirectly involved in the conflict and have a significant

stake in the outcome.

Categories of Stakeholders

a. Primary Stakeholders

They are those whose goals are, or are perceived by them to be

incompatible and who interact directly in pursuit of their respective

goals. They are the direct investors in the conflict.

b. Secondary Stakeholders

Are affected directly by the outcome of the conflict but who do not feel

themselves to be directly involved. As the conflict progresses, they may

become primary and primary may become secondary.

c. Interested Stakeholders

These parties have an interest in the conflict. They stand to benefit from

the outcomes whether peaceful or conflictual. The difference between

interested and secondary stakeholders is that the interested stakeholders

suffer no direct impact of the conflict in the short and medium term.

Criteria for Determining Primary-Stakeholders

Determining where stakeholders should be put is both political and

fluid. The following often determines the decisions of interveners in

selecting the stakeholders to engage.

i. Functional

This suggests those who directly wage the conflict. Their legitimacy on

the negotiating table is their capacity and ability to perpetuate the

conflict. They are the embodiment of the conflict. Observers believe

they have the power to end the conflict.

ii. Representativity

This is political aspect of stakeholders’ categorization. Stakeholders are

primary because they represent a large number of people who are

directly affected by the conflict. These people also have the means to

wage conflict or build peace.

iii. Moral Authority

Primary Stakeholders can also be determined because their moral

authority carries the vision of post-conflict society. These include

religious leaders, civil society organizations including women’s

organizations, traditional leaders. Earlier, this category was only

confined to the secondary level.

Five (5) Elements Required to Structure Analysis of Stakeholders

= Relationship - What is the interaction between the

stakeholders?

= Agenda/Power - What are the agendas of key stakeholders for

conflict and for peace?

= Needs - What are the needs of the different

stakeholders? Which needs are opposing and

overlapping?
= Action - What actions are the different stakeholders

undertaking to promote peace or conflict?

What is the cumulative power of actions for

peace or conflict?

Pre-Intervention Conflict Analysis

Entering into conflict situations by a researcher or conflict management

practitioner is often an unpredictable task which requires a critical

careful conflict analysis. It is not enough for him/her to just note the

positions of the stakeholders (parties) in the conflict but s/he must have

a thorough understanding of their interests, values and needs as well.

The following model suggests a way for the intervenor to gather data

and increase the certainty that his/her entry will be constructive to the

disputing parties. It is the responsibility of an intervenor to develop a

comprehensive picture of the conflict by identifying its key element. The

pre-intervention information gathered usually points the intervenor in a

certain direction, suggesting ways to engage the parties to reduce

tensions and work together to find solution to the problems that they

face on one hand. Additional information or data collected during the

course of intervention should also be incorporated into the conflict

analysis. This may help you determine why an issue is so hard to resolve

or it may suggest an alternative approach to conflict management.

1. History of the Conflict

It is important for a conflict analyst to understand the significant events

that has happened in the past between the parties. It reveals the genesis

of the conflict and whether they have had previous disputes. History also

enables the intervenor to ask the following questions. What has been the
pattern of their relationship? Was there a recent change in the

relationship? Did the conflict abate at one time before re-escalating?

What past efforts have been made to resolve it and why they failed?

Preferring answers to these questions might require visiting local, state

and native archives for documentary evidence. Oral interviews might

also be used to gather necessary information.

2. Context of Conflict

It is also necessary to know how the parties are currently trying to

resolve their differences. What is the physical environment of the

conflict? That is the social, economics and political environment of the

conflict, as well as the dimensions of the external situations (state, subregional and global). How
do the parties communicate and make

decisions?

3. Primary Parties

Identify the parties involved in the conflict, what are the parties

positions and underlying interest? What are their values and perceptions

of the other parties? Do the parties have settlement authority?

What interest, goals, or needs do the parties share in common?

4. Power Relations

This has to do with the ability to influence or control other events, which

could be in form of physical strength, status, control of resources,

persuasive ability, support of allies, and so on. There are two major

types of power that can be exercised by either of the parties in conflict

which are: hard power which is usually associated with violent conflict

while the other is soft power that is identified with positive conflict. The

following questions are usually being asked under power relation: Is

there balance of power between the disputants? What is/are the source(s)

of the parties’ power? What resources are at the disposal of each party?

How often do the parties use their power and what are the consequences

of such power? Are there any untapped power bases of the parties?

What method of peace process is suitable for the success of the

intervention?

5. Other Parties/Stakeholders

Apart from the already mentioned primary parties, under this, we have

secondary parties and shadow parties that must be considered and their

link or relationships with the primary parties ought to be carefully

examined in order to understand the overall underlying problems

associated with a conflict. Secondary parties can easily be identified

compared to shadow parties because most times. Shadow parties hide

their identities but supply primary parties resources required for the

prosecution of conflict.

The roles these parties play in the conflict must be ascertained. You

should know whether they align with either of the primary parties or

neutral. When and how these parties can be involved in the peace

agencies or organizations availability and involvement in the process of

conflict resolution cannot be underestimated.

6. Issues

a. What are the primary issues as identified by the parties?

b. Are there hidden or secondary issues not stated by the parties that

are needed to be identified?

c. What kind of intervention procedures is necessary for the types if

issues are identified?

d. Is the conflict genuine in its own right or is it merely a symptom

of other unresolved conflict(s).

e. If the latter or former, how much time and efforts must be

expended on the conflict in order to reach or arrive at a

reasonable and sustainable resolution.

7. The Immediate Situation

What is happening now? (Should the first step be efforts to move

towards negotiations, or are short – term violence reduction strategies

called for? It is the responsibility of the intervenor to determine the most

effective and reliable conflict management strategy to adopt in

accordance with the urgency and demand of the conflict situation. For

example, if the conflict is at a violent stage, definitely, the intervenor

may be compelled to adopt some violence reduction strategies to reduce

the rate of likely casualty that may arise.

8 Stages of Conflict

a. We have to ascertain whether the conflict is escalating or

stabilizing, and ask why?

b. If the conflict is escalating, what is happening: Are issues moving

from specific to general? Is there an increase in issues or

resources used to wage the conflict? Has disagreement turned to

antagonism? Is there an increase in the level of power being used

by either parties? Are the parties polarized? Has extremist

leadership arisen? Is communication affected or being distorted?

Are parties engaged in propaganda campaigns?

c. If the conflict is stabilizing, what is happening? Are safety-value

mechanisms put in place? Is there a fear of escalation? Are there

agreements on norms and values? Are there social bonds,

friendships, cross-cutting memberships among party members?

Are there other third party intervenors or external interference or

threat? Are there time constraints or other limitations on the

further use of resources?

9. Timing

a. To ascertain the actual and right time of intervention.

b. Determine the most profitable and successful time of the

intervention.

c. To know the party that is likely to benefit from immediate

intervention.

10. Possible Options of Intervention/Settlement

a. The level of knowledge and understanding of the parties

alternatives should be considered.

b. Level of parties awareness of each other’s alternatives or option

should be considered.

c. Examine the efforts made so far by the conflicting parties in the

accomplishment of their options.

d. Evaluate the realistic nature of the parties.

Definitions of Conflict Mapping and Tracking

Conflict Mapping

Wehr (1979:18) describes conflict mapping or the “first step in

intervening to manage a particular conflict”.

Conflict mapping can also be defined as graphical representation of the

conflict in which the conflicting parties are placed in relation to the

situation on ground.
Maps are used for a variety of purposes to understand conflict situation

better, to ascertain where power lies, to examine conflict clearly from

one viewpoint, to look for openings (way out) or new strategies, to know

where our allies or potential allies are placed, to find our own niche, to

evaluate what has been done and for many other reasons.

Conflict Tracking

Is the process which involves monitoring, observing and recording the

trend of change and continuity in the conflict process. What to keep of

could include:

Conflict parties, including internal leadership struggles,

varying prospect for military success and the reading of

general population to express support for a settlement;

possible ways of re-defining goals and finding alternative

means of resolving differences including suggested step

towards settlement and eventual transformation; likely

constraints on these, and how these might be overcome .

It is very important for the person keeping track of the

conflict to pay careful attention to the minutest details

about the issue and circumstances around him.

Conventions for Mapping Relationship.

The following are the particular conventions we use in mapping

relationships existing between or among the stakeholders (parties)

involved in a conflict situation.

The top level includes:

Top level involves: The military, politicians/religious leaders with high visibilities, international
organization/government.

Middle level involves: leaders respected in a sector, ethnic/religious leaders, academics, NGOs
and professioners.

Grassroot level involves: local leaders/elders, NGOs and community workers. Others are;
women and youth groups, local health workers and refugee camp leaders

Top
Middle
Grassroot
figure showing stakeholders in conflict

party E

party D

party F party A

party C

party B

1. - The circles indicate parties to the situation.

The size of the circles indicates power relations of the parties.

2. - Straight lines indicate direct relationship between the parties when communication is

at its best.

3. - Double connecting lines indicate an alliance

4. - Dotted lines indicate informal weak or

intermittent relationship.

5. - Arrows indicate the predominant direction of

influence or activity.

6. - Lines like lightening indicate discord or

conflict.

7. // - A double line like a wall across lines

indicates a broken relationship.

8. - A square or rectangle indicates an issue,

topic or some thing other than people.

9 - Shadows show external parties which have

influence but are not directly involved.

Conflict Analytical Tools

Conflict mapping tracking and analysis processes are the essential

ingredients required in pre-third party intervention for the collection of

essential and comprehensive information/data by a mediator or conflict

intervenor to discover purposeful tool(s) and techniques that can be used

or adopted to suit their needs.

Through such data, Moore (1996:114) notes, that a mediator would:

• Develop a mediation plan or conflict strategy that meets the

requirements of the specific situation and the needs of all parties.

• Avoid entering a dispute with a conflict resolution or

management procedure that is appropriate for the stage of

development or level of intensity that the dispute has reached.

• Operate from an accurate information base that will prevent

unnecessary conflicts due to mis-communication, mis-perception,

or misleading data.

• Clarify which issues and interests are most important.

• Identify the key people involved and the dynamics of their

relationships.

As mentioned above, some of the techniques or tools may look familiar

or may be unfamiliar. However, all have been tried and used repeatedly

and successfully by people from many different types of conflict

situations. In many cases, groups have adapted them to suit the

particular needs they have or based on the perceptions of the people who
work on it.

These are some of the available tools/techniques

A. Timeline

Definition

Timeline is a graph that shows events plotted against a particular timescale.

Timeline shows different views of history in a conflict: helps to clarify

and understand each side’s perception of events and also facilitate easy

identification of events that are most important to each side. It lists dates

(years, month, or day, depending on the scale) and depicts events in

chronological order.

In a conflict situation, groups of people often have completely different

experiences and perceptions: they see and understand the conflict in

quite distinct ways. They often have different histories. People on

opposing sides of the conflict may note or emphasize different events,

describe them differently, and attach contrasting emotions to them.

Using the Timeline

Timeline is not a research tool per say as mentioned above, but a way to

prompt discussion and learning. In conflict situation, it is usually used

early in a process along with either analytical tools or later in the process

to help in strategy building. It is also used when people disagree about

events or don’t know each other’s history and as a way of helping

people to accept their own perspective as only part of the “truth”.

Variation in use: it is used by parties themselves and shared with each

other; it is followed by a discussion about events that are highlighted by

each side and adding a line for peace initiatives during the same time

period.
ABC TRIANGLE METHODS OF ANALYSIS

B C

The ABC triangle

First of all, in ABC, the A represents (Attitude), B (Behaviour) and C (Context)

Attitudes (willingness to change, fixed position, how one feels)

Behaviour (agitation, demand, pleas, violence)

Context (the background/goals).

ABC analytical tool sees conflict having three above mentioned elements, which affects one
another. The third-party intervenor or peacemaker in a conflict, uses this tool by drawing up a
separate ABC Triangle for each of the major stakeholders in the conflict. He lists key issues
relating to attitude, behaviour and context from the parties viewpoint, identify the most important
need and fears, and inform each of the parties, his needs and fear as you think, and

place these in the middle of the triangle of each of them. You later

compare and contrast the perception of the parties for detecting the

major object of conflict and then pay attention on the majority. The

causes and issues, which are the products of the parties differences, will

be addressed, while intervenor will make the parties see reasons on why

they should do away with negative perceptions and embrace peace in

order to bring about positive and sustainable peace.

The Onion/Doughnut Method of Analysis

This is a graphic tool based upon the analogy of an onion and its layers.
The outer layer contains the positions (parties’ wants). Underlying these

are the interests of the parties in conflict (what parties want to achieve

from the situation concerned). The third layer is the core cause at the

conflict situation, that is; the most important needs to be satisfied. It is

important for intervenor to carry out or do this “onion” analysis for each

of the parties involved.

When times are stable, relationships

good, and trust high, our actions and

strategies may stem from our most

basic needs. We may be willing to

disclose these needs to others, and

discuss them openly, if we trust them,

and they may be able, through

analysis and empathy, to grasp our

needs even before we disclose them.

In more volatile or dangerous situations, and when there is mistrust

between people, we may want to keep our basic needs hidden. To let

others know our needs would reveal our vulnerability, and perhaps give

them extra power to hurt us. If all of us are hidden from each other, they

are also less likely to be able to grasp our needs through analysis or

empathy because of lack of knowledge and because our mistrust

changes our perceptions of each other.

In such a situation of conflict and instability, actions may no longer

come directly from needs. People may look at more collective and

abstract level of interests, and base their actions on these. When the

interests are under attack, they may take up and defend a position, which
is still further removed from their original needs.

This type of analysis enables intervenor to understand the dynamic of a

conflict situation, and prepare dialogue facilitation between groups in a

conflict. The analysis is most useful in a mediation or negotiation

processes when parties involved in either of the processes which to

clarify for themselves their own needs, interests and positions. As they

plan their strategies for negotiation, they can decide how much of the

interior “layers” – interests and needs – they want to reveal to the other

parties involved.

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

INTRODUCTION

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a term generally used to refer to

informal dispute resolution processes in which the parties meet with a

professional third party who helps them resolve their dispute in a way

that is less formal and often more consensual than is done in the courts

(Burgess, and Burgess, 1997). While the most common forms of ADR

are mediation and arbitration, there are many other forms: judicial

settlement conferences, fact-finding, ombudsmen, special masters, etc.

Though often voluntary, ADR is sometimes mandated by the courts,

which require that disputants try mediation before they take their case to

court.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes

Alternative Dispute Resolution, ADR e m e r g e d i n t h e

UnitedStatesofAmericanasan

alternative means of dispute

resolution outside the formal legal

systemofthejudicialprocess.ADR

encompasses all forms of dispute

resolution other than court - b a s e d

litigation or adjudication (Burgess

and B u r g e s s , 1 9 9 7 ) . It is used to settle a variety

of disputes in American institutions, including the family, churches,

schools, the workplace, and government agencies. ADR as a dispute

resolution mechanism has spread across the world. In Nigeria, ADR as

an alternative to the formal legal system of the court has

increasingly gained acceptance.

ADR is considered an alternative to litigation which is regarded as

an adversarial system of conflict resolution that lead to a win-lose

outcome. Litigation is also perceived to be time and cost

consuming while ADR is seen as more cost and time effective. It

also has the potential to lead to mutually acceptable or win-win

outcome for the conflict parties. ADR as an alternative to litigation

is preferable given the delay in the court process, congestion of the

court as a result of increasing caseloads in the court of law, the

confidential nature of ADR and the ability of the conflict parties

to select the third party that will intervene their case. Other factors

that make disputant to prefer ADR include the high cost of

litigation, unsatisfactory outcome of the court judgement which is

usually a win-lose outcome that can damage relationship between

disputants. ADR is of two main types. It is a method of conflict

resolution outside the official judicial process. It can also be an

informal method of conflict resolution attached to or pendant to

the official judicial mechanism. ADR promotes openness,

dialogue, effective communication, understanding and trustbuilding among the conflict parties in
a problem-solving manner

that has the potential to lead to consensus to resolve their conflict.

As a conflict resolution method, ADR has many of the

characteristics that is applicable to the African traditional method

of conflict resolution which foster truth, compromise, reciprocity,

fairness and other attributes that can lead to consensus or mutually

acceptable solution to the conflict. ADR is flexible, adaptable and

The ADR spectrum are diverse and encompasses various methods

of conflict resolution including Arbitration, Mediation,

Negotiation, Conciliation, and Facilitation. These ADR processes

are the most common types. Other variants of the ADR include

Ombudsman, Executive tribunal, Expert determination, Neutral

find-finder, Early Neutral Evaluation, Med-Arb, and Arb-Med.

The major ADR methods such as Negotiation and Mediation will

be extensively discussed in this course. The two methods are

regarded as non-binding or non-adversarial conflict resolution

methods with high potential to lead to win-win outcome for the

disputants.

Conflict parties are more willing to adopt ADR processes when the

conflict become ripe or at a stage in which the parties realise the

need for intervention to resolve their differences. The stage at

which parties perceived the need for intervention is at the point of

hurting stalemate -- a situation where it becomes clear that neither side

can win; yet, they are being substantially hurt by continuing the struggle.

The willingness of the parties to use ADR methods to resolve their conflict

is very crucial for the ADR processes to work effectively. The ADR

methods have been used in diverse cases. For example:

Arbitration and negotiation have become common ways

to resolve difficult international business disputes.

Mediation and arbitration are now commonly used to

settle labor-management disputes that often used to be

protracted; International mediation has been used to

resolve difficult international conflicts, with varying

degrees of success.

The Advantages and Disadvantages of ADR

For many reasons, advocates of ADR believe that it is superior to

lawsuits and litigation. First, ADR is generally faster and less expensive.

It is based on more direct participation by the disputants, rather than

being run by lawyers, judges, and the state. In most ADR processes, the

disputants outline the process they will use and define the substance of

the agreements. This type of involvement is believed to increase

people's satisfaction with the outcomes, as well as their compliance with

the agreements reached.

ADR facilitates timely resolution of conflict. It is also considered to be

less expensive than litigation. It promotes confidentiality and trust given

that the conflict parties and the third parties that intervene in the conflict

are expected to ensure and guarantee secrecy of the issues in the conflict.

ADR is also perceived to promote the restoration of pre-conflict

relationship between the disputants. It is considered to lead to outcome

that can address disputants needs and thus lead to mutually satisfactory

resolution.

Most ADR processes are based on an integrative approach. They are

more cooperative and less competitive than adversarial court-based

methods like litigation. A D R p r o m o t e s a c c e s s t o

justiceforallbecauseitismoretimelyand

l e s s e x p e n s i v e t h a n l i t i g a t i o n . For this reason, ADR

tends to generate less escalation and ill will between parties. In fact,

participating in an ADR process will often ultimately improve,

rather than worsen, the relationship between the disputing parties.

This is a key advantage in situations where the parties must continue

to interact after settlement is reached, such as in child custody or labor

management cases.

ADR does have many potential advantages, but there are also some

possible drawbacks and criticisms of pursuing alternatives to courtbased adjudication. Some

critics have concerns about the legitimacy of

ADR outcomes, given that the outcome of ADR processes like

Negotiation and Mediation are considered non-binding on the

disputants. This leads to the perception that ADR provides "secondclass justice." It is argued that
people who cannot afford to go to court are those most likely to use ADR procedures. As a
result, these people are

less likely to truly "win" a case because of the non-binding nature of these

ADR processes.

Similarly, critics believe that ADR encourages compromise.

Compromise can be a good way to settle some disputes, but it is not

appropriate for others (Rann, 1997). In t h e c a s e o f

conflictovervaluessuchasbelief
s y s t e m , e t h n i c i t y a n d r e l i g i o n , compromise

is simply not an option because the issues borders of what

represent the identity of the disputants. Another concern is that

ADR settlements are private and are not in the public record or

exposed to public scrutiny. This could be cause for concern in some

cases. For example, using ADR to settle out of court could allow a

company to resolve many instances of a defective product harming consumers,

without the issue getting any public exposure. On the other hand, a court ruling

could force the company to fix all problems associated with the bad product or

even to remove it from the market.

NEGOTIATION

INTRODUCTION

Negotiation is a form of decision-making in which two or more conflict parties

communicate with one another in an effort to resolve their opposing interest (Anstey,

1991). It is also defined as a process of communication back and forth for the purpose

of reaching a joint decision (Fisher and Ury, 1983). Negotiation can be considered as

a method of conflict resolution when the conflict has not generated to violence. In a

violent conflict, it will be difficult for the conflict parties to come together to

communicate with one another in the efforts to resolve their differences. Negotiation

is part of our everyday realities. People tend to negotiate in the course of making

purchase, personal or interpersonal decision making process, resolving conflict, and

contractual agreement. During the negotiation process, the conflict parties talk with

one another in their effort to resolve their differences. This process can occur at a

personal level, as well as at a corporate or international (diplomatic) level.

Negotiation involves persuasive communication or bargaining between the conflict

parties. In negation, the method of conducting dialogue or discussion should be based

on the merit of the case. This entails four principles namely, People, Interests, Options

and Criteria. People has to do with the need to separate the people from the problem

by jointly working together to find solution to the problem. The negotiation process

must focus on conflict parties’ interests, not position. The parties to the conflict must

strive to identify and address their underlying interest, which is about their concerns

and fears. Conflict parties position is about what they say they want but underlying

such position is their interests. Conflict parties must think outside the box or creatively

generate variety of options or alternative solutions in the effort to find the best possible

way to resolve their difference in a mutually satisfactory manner. The criteria for the

negotiated agreement must be based on some objective standard (Fisher and Ury,

1983).

The Process of Negotiation

The process of negotiation passes through phases or stages. The three phases

of negotiation are the pre-negotiation, negotiation and the post negotiation

or implementation (Berridge, 1995). The process of communication

between conflict parties to find solution to their problem usually pass

through these three stages. The conflict parties could have met to jointly

agree on the need for negotiation, decide on the time and place for the

negotiation. Negotiation should usually take place at a neutral place where

the conflict parties consider conducive for the negotiation process. After the

negotiation, the parties meet again to facilitate the implementation of the

negotiated agreement. There may be a re-negotiation phase if the parties are

unable to reach agreement during the initiation negotiation. The negotiation

process usually involves making concession or compromise in order to find

a solution to the conflict. The conflict parties cooperate, collaborate and

compromise with one another towards resolving their differences. The

ability of the conflict parties to adopt a problem-solving approach during the

negotiation process will determine the outcome. When both parties

maximally collaborate and compromise, there is a high possibility of

achieving a mutually satisfactory outcome. The outcome of the negotiation

process can be win-win, win-lose or lose-lose. To be able to achieve a winwin outcome, the
conflict parties must be willing to make concessions

through a give and take approach in which they compromise on the issues

in the conflict. The conflict parties must identify their interests and needs

and the best possible ways to meet The conflict parties may be willing or

unwilling to make concessions on the basis of their level of influence or

resources at their disposal. The party with the more influence or resources

may be unwilling to compromise or make concession. Rather the stronger

or more influential parties will want to impose or make the weaker parties

to comply with their demands. This situation tends to result in a win-lose

outcome. While the stronger parties win, the weaker parties will lose. The

prospect of a win-win outcome is high when both parties downplay their

level of influence or access to resources that can utilize to crush the

opposing parties, such that they jointly work together to address both

parties interest and needs, make concessions and compromise and invent

creative solution towards mutually acceptable or win-win outcome.

Conflict parties desirous of restoring their strained relationship and

building longer lasting relation at the post conflict stage will be more

willing to achieve a win-win outcome.

In the negotiation process, parties to the conflict have the capacity to

influence one another. The level of influence usually differs, and the way

that they use their influence can determine the outcome of the negotiation.

The conflict parties tend to prioritize the various issues in the conflict such

that they are able to compromise or make concession on the basis of the

level of importance they attached to these conflict issues. The conflict

parties will be willing to make concessions on those issues that they attach

less importance to and will be unwillingly to concede those issues of

importance to them. The priority that conflict parties attached to the

conflict issues are not entirely the same. The difference in the value

attached to the conflict issues make it possible for the parties to make

compromise and concession by inventing creative solution that can lead to

win-win outcome. Conflict parties are expected to aim high in the

beginning of the negotiation process and gradually make concessions until

they are able to mutually resolve their differences in a satisfactory manner.

The conflict parties must be able to communicate effectively, listen

actively to one another, differentiate between position and interest and

work towards understanding each other interests and needs and invent

workable solution to their differences. The effective negotiator m u s t b e

abletounderstandtheotherparties,theapproachto

negotiationandhowtotailortheirownnegotiationto

beattunewiththeotherparties.Bothpartiesshouldnot

usethesameapproachsimultaneously.Ifbothparties

insistontheirpositionatthesametime,byadopting

competitiveapproach,itwillbedifficulttoresolve

theirdifference.Thismayleadtoanegotiation

impasse.Conflictpartiesmustadjusttheirapproachon
thebasisoftheapproachbeenutilizedbytheother

p a r t i e s . If one party makes several proposals that are rejected, and

the other party makes no alternate proposal, the first party may break

off negotiations. Parties typically will not want to concede too much

if they do not sense that those with whom they are negotiating are willing

to compromise.

The parties must work toward a solution that takes into account each

person's interest and needs and hopefully optimizes the

outcomes for both. As they try to find their way toward agreement,

the parties move from position to identify their interest and needs and

jointly work cooperatively towards t o r e a c h a m u t u a l l y

acceptablenegotiatedagreement.

Types and Strategy of Negotiation

The is overlap between the style and strategy of Negotiation. The strategy

of negotiation refers to bargaining. Bargaining is a process of give and

take during negotiation. It is thus the strategy adopted by conflict parties

during the negotiation process. The approach or strategy of negotiation can

be competitive, collaborative, cooperative or compromise. In the

bargaining process, conflict parties reached agreement by compromising

on each single issue or by trading concessions. Conflict parties do not

attach the same value of each of the conflict issues. As such they will be

willing to make concessions on what they value less and unwilling to trade

what they value most. The bargaining process can be aborted when if one

or both parties perceive that they have a better alternative than a negotiated

agreement. This is known as BATNA, a situation in which walking away

from the negotiation process is considered to be less damaging for the

either of the conflict parties than settling for the proposed agreement.

BATNA is the standard against which any negotiated agreement is

measured (Fisher and Ury, 1983). The three strategies of negotiation or

Bargaining are competitive, interest-based and integrative. A competitive

bargaining is interchangeably referred to as distributive bargaining in

which conflict parties adopt a competitive approach to negotiation by

seeking to achieve a better outcome than the opponent. This strategy of

bargaining leads to a win-lose outcome. Integrative bargaining is a

cooperative approach to negotiation in which conflict parties strive for

mutual gains and mutually satisfactory solution. Bargaining can be

interest-based when conflict parties focus on their underlying interest

rather than on their position, which can be hard to concede.

The negotiation strategies overlap with the types of negotiation because

the strategy adopted by conflict parties will determine the negotiation

outcomes. The type of negotiation are: hard negotiation, soft negotiation

and principled negotiation (International Alert, 1996). Hard negotiation

entails that the conflict parties use of coercive strategies to influence one

another to accede to demands towards reaching agreement that will favor

the hard negotiator. The hard negotiation is competitive and characterized

by antagonistic and adversarial relationship between conflict parties who

adopt extreme position and unwillingness to shift ground or make

concessions. The negotiation outcome can be lose-lose if both parties are

hard negotiator or win-lose if one of the conflict parties is a hard negotiator

and the other is influenced to compromise and make concessions.

Soft negotiation involves making concessions easily and trading off on

issues without consideration to the values attached to those issues. In this

type of negotiation, conflict parties is concerned about reaching agreement

without generating conflict by avoiding issues that can provoke

disagreement. The tendency to easily make concession by one party can

make the other parties to increase rather than moderate their demands. The

soft negotiator may be more concerned about preserving relationship with

the other parties in anticipation of some future benefits. As such, the party

may be willing to trade off important issues and lose out by giving in to

the demand of the other parties.

Principled negotiation is consensual and merit-based which is geared

towards achieving mutual gains. It focuses on identifying conflict parties

interest and needs and promotion of mutual gains. It is highly collaborative

and based on the good will of conflict parties who communicate

effectively with one another in their efforts to achieve a mutually

acceptable negotiated agreement. This type of negotiation strengthens and

long-term working relationship because of the focus of joint problem

solving approach that invent creative solution that is agreeable to the

conflict parties.

The styles of negotiation adopted by conflict parties is a determinant of the negotiation

outcome. If both sides maximally cooperate, they will both have win-win outcomes.

If one cooperates and the other competes, the cooperator will o s e and the

competitor will gain leading to a win-lose outcome. If both compete, the conflict

parties will both have a lose-lose outcomes. In the face of uncertainty about what

strategy the other side will adopt, each parties strive to adjust their strategy on the

basis of the strategy adopted by the other parties.

The three phases of negotiation are the pre-negotiation, negotiation and the post negotiation

or implementation
conflict parties into the negotiated agreement. Interests i s t h e

underlyingmotivations,concerns,

hopes,goalsandfearoftheconflict

p a r t i e s . The interests are the underlying reasons why people

become involved in a conflict.

Integrative bargaining which is interchangeable called "interestbased bargaining," or "win-win

bargaining" is a negotiation strategy in Integrative Bargaining

Integrative refers to the potential for the c o n f l i c t parties'

interests to be [combined] in ways that create joint value or “enlarge INTEGRATIVE

BARGAINING.

MEDIATION

INTRODUCTION

Mediation is an extension or elaboration of the negotiation process in

which an impartial, and neutral third party works with the conflict parties

to help them to arrive at a mutually agreeable negotiated agreement (Fisher

and Ury, 1983; Kressel, 2007). It is the third party that facilitates

communication between the conflict parties, by assisting them to improve

their communication and analysis of the conflict situation. With the

support of the third party, the disputants are better able to jointly work

towards inventing creative solution to the issues at stake in the conflict. In

the event that there is a negotiation impasse, the conflict parties may

consider mediation as an alternative method of resolving their

disagreement. Mediation is voluntary conflict resolution process in which

an impartial third party facilitates and coordinates the negotiation process.

As such it is also refer to as facilitated negotiation. The mediator as

thefacilitatorofthenegotiationprocess

between the conflict parties help them to define

agenda, identify and reframe the issues, communicate more

effectively, find areas of common ground, negotiate fairly, and

hopefully, reach an agreement.

Mediation is widely used in all sorts of disputes, ranging from

commercial disputes, workplace conflict, divorces to civil lawsuits

to very complex intergroup to international conflicts. Some of the most

intractable and complex conflicts can be resolved through mediation.

Mediation is considered a viable conflict resolution method for resolving

protracted, and deep-rooted conflicts, which is most unlikely to be

amenable to resolution without the intervention of a neutral third party

(Wall, et al., 2001). It is also considered the best strategy for resolving

violent conflict given that it would be virtually impossible for conflict

parties who have attacked one another to come together by themselves to

find solution to their problem. The destructive nature of the conflict would

breed further ill will that would widen the misperception between the

parties to the conflict. Mediation may not be able to deal with all the issues

in the conflict, but it will provide a good prospect for addressing some of

the conflict issues.

The Process of Mediation

The mediation process typically proceeds through four stages (Kressel,

2014). The first stage is for the mediator to create a forum for the

negotiation or bargaining between the conflict parties. This is followed by

information gathering and sharing between the parties to the conflict. The

next stage involves an analytical problem solving bargaining in which the

conflict parties search for options for dealing with the issues at stake in a

mutually satisfactory way. The last stage is the decision making in which

parties choose the most acceptable solution out of the various options

invented to resolve the conflict. To move through these four stages, the

mediator must first initiate the mediation process by setting the agenda,

facilitate good communication between the parties towards identifying the

issues in the conflicts, in a joint problem solving manner in which both

parties demonstrate concern for one another and work towards identifying

and addressing their interests and needs and inventing ideas or options that

can lead to mutually agreeable negotiated outcome. Mediators m u s t b e

impartial, trustworthy and capable of exercising diplomatic

skills. The mediation must be able to use persuasion to get people to

soften hardline positions. The mediator must also be knowledgeable

about the conflict issues and the various stakeholders involved in the

conflict. It is also important that a mediator possesses patience,

integrity, empathy, be attentive, tolerance, and imaginative (Kressel,

2014). Though many mediators are highly trained and experienced,

not all are professionals, and they come from many different walks of

life.

Types of Mediators

Mediators typically falls into one of the following three categories.

Social Network Mediators

This type of mediator refers to those individuals who are invited to

intervene in a conflict basically because of their close relationship with the

disputant. The mediator is usually within the same social group or network

with the conflict parties. They can be friends, neighbor, member of the
same ethnic, religious or political group with the conflict parties who are

respected and considered trustworthy to intervene in the conflict. The

social network mediator may not possess the relevant attributes such as

impartially, credibility, patience, tolerance and resourcefulness. The lack

of the attributes essential is not unconnected with the fact that the social

network mediation is not a professional. He or she only take up the role of

a mediator because of the close relations with the conflict parties.

The mediator failure to demonstrate these critical attribute can affect the

mediation process, obstruct effective communication, dialogue and

rapport between the conflict parties and the ability to analyze the problem

towards creating new ideas to resolve the problem. In some cases, the

social network mediator may be a skilled or professional which could have

been acquired through years of experience as a mediator or through

professional training.

AuthoritativeMediator

The mediator is in an authoritative relationship with the conflict parties in

the sense that the mediator occupies a position of authority that is

recognized and well respected by the disputants. The mediator authority

may be based on the resources which he or she possesses which is valuable

to the conflict parties. In spite of the mediator position of authority, he or

she is not expected to serve as a judge or impose decision on the conflict

parties. The authoritative mediator is expected to persuasively influence

the conflict parties to reach an agreement.

The main challenge with this type of mediator is that the authoritative

mediator may act in a domineering way that portrayed him more or less as

a judge rather than an impartial third party facilitating communication

between the parties to help them to arrive at a satisfactory solution to their

problem. Such stance can impede the mediation process, preventing the

conflict parties from building rapport with one another to identify their

interest and generate ideas to resolve their differences.

An authoritative mediator may use his position of authority to influence the

conflict parties to take a decision that hardly reflect their interest or meet

their needs. This type of mediator may also impose a decision on the parties

by virtue of his or her authority in a way that does not reflect what a

mediation process should be. If an authoritative mediator is skilled, he or

she will demonstrate all the critical attributes that can facilitate a wellorganized mediation
process that will help the conflict parties to achieve an

agreeable negotiated solution. Thus, it is very vital that mediators have the

skills, qualities and capacity to facilitate an efficient and successful

mediation process

Independent Mediator

The mediator is an impartial and neutral third party who has no vested

interest in the conflict and is expected to work with the conflict

parties to analyze the issues in the conflict and develop creative

ideas to resolve their conflict. The mediator is a professional who is

well trained in the skills and strategies of mediation and possesses

all the attributes of a mediator. The mediation helps to build rapports

between the conflict parties and facilitate effective dialogue and

analytical problem solving approach to dealing with the conflict.

This type of mediator is well skilled and capable of facilitating

rapport and effective communication between the conflict parties.

The effective communication between the parties will help them to

work towards analytical problem-solving approach that will aid the

identification of their interest, concerns, fears and needs and how

they can jointly create ideas or options to resolve the issues in the

conflict in a mutually satisfactory manner.

The mediator capacity to guide the conflict parties towards a

mutually agreeable negotiated settlement is also acquired through

years of experience as a mediator. The capacity of a mediator gets

better with experience because he or she will become more adept to

mediate in diverse kinds of cases over time. An independent

mediator provides the best mediation process because of the capacity

to demonstrate professionalism that is requires of a mediator.

What is Independent Mediator?

The mediator is an impartial and neutral third party who has no vested interest in the conflict

and is expected to work with the conflict parties to analyze the issues in the conflict

and develop creative ideas to resolve their conflict. The mediator is a professional

who is well trained in the skills and strategies of mediation and possesses all the

attributes of a mediator.

SKILLS OF MEDIATION

INTRODUCTION

The mediator must possess relevant skills and qualities that can ensure a

quality mediation process. These skills and qualities are essential to the

success of the mediation process. Conflict parties are willing to accept a

mediator when they are confident that the mediator possess the basic skills

and qualities that can facilitate a smooth dialogue and assist them to arrive

at a mutually satisfactory outcome. The mediator must be able to gain the

trust, acceptance and cooperation of the conflict parties. This is possible

when the mediator can demonstrate those critical skills and qualities that

will enable the conflict parties to trust and be confident in the mediator

capacity to assist them to search for solution to their conflict.

Basic skills in Mediation

There are several skills that is very vital for a mediator to acquire to ensure a

smooth mediation process for the conflict parties. Without these basic skills,

the mediation possess will be unsuccessful. The conflict parties may not be

willing to accept mediation when they are uncertain that the mediator possesses

these basic skills of mediation. The possession of these skills is essential to the

capacity of the mediator to build good rapport among the disputants that will

enable them to develop a problem solving approach towards resolving their

disagreement.

The basic mediation skills require that a mediator is able to actively listen

to the conflict parties. He or she must have good communication skills to

be able to listen carefully, facilitate a smooth back and forth communication

between the parties, help them to clarity, reframe and summarize their

dialogue. The mediator must have the ability to decipher and separate

simple from complex issues, analyses the conflict issues and help the parties

to discover their interest and how to jointly work towards developing

satisfactory solution to the issues at stake. The mediator has to be patience

and empathetic. It is also important that a mediator demonstrate neutrality,

irrespective of his or her worldview and belief.

The mediator must be tactful and has the power to persuasively nudge the

conflict parties towards a practical and mutually acceptable solution to their

disagreement. This requires that the mediator possess the power of oratory

and diplomacy to stir the parties to develop an analytical problem solving

approach to resolving their conflict.

Another essential skill is the ability to help the conflict parties to invent

creative options towards resolving their conflict to achieve win-win

solution. To be able to attain a mutually agreeable solution, the mediator

must adopt an analytical approach that will help the conflict parties to

identify the issues in the conflict, understand their interest and needs and

make informed decision that will be implementable.

Qualities of a Mediator

The qualities that the conflict parties seek in a mediator and are necessary for

an good mediation process and outcome are diverse and overlapping. An

effective mediator must be intelligent and knowledgeable about the conflict

situation. He or she has to be credible and demonstrate integrity. The mediator

has to be resourceful and imaginative to be able to build the capacity of the

conflict parties to invent creative options to resolve their disagreement. A

trustworthy and neutral mediator will be favored by the conflict parties because

they will be able to openly and freely express their innermost concerns and fears

that can make them vulnerable.

The mediator must be tolerance of the conflict parties emotional outburst and

act as a sponge can absorb the conflict parties frustration, and direct them

towards a positive approach to the problem. This will entail that they are able

to focus on the problem and deal with these issues in the conflict in a positive

way. The mediator must be a catalyst that can help the conflict parties to change

their misperception and be open-minded in dealing with the issues at stake. The

mediator should be able to serve as a scribe who take down all the key point

during the dialogue, double check the information provided by both parties to

ensure that all the diverse issues in the conflict have been dealt with and
practical solution developed.

The qualities of a mediator are inexhaustible. The essential

ones have been discussed. In addition, a mediator should be

able to treat the conflict parties equally, showing them respect

and dignity at all times. He or she should create an

environment that makes the parties feel comfortable and safe.

The mediator must be sensitive to power imbalances between

the parties in a way that help them to see one another as equal

partners in search of solution to their disagreement. The

mediator is also non-judgmental and be able to convince the

parties that he or she has no stake in the outcome of the

dispute that will prevent the parties from reaching an

agreement that serves each of their interests.

What are the basic qualities skills of mediator?

The basic mediation skills require that a mediator is able to

actively listen to the conflict parties. He or she must have good

communication skills to be able to listen carefully, facilitate a

smooth back and forth communication between the parties,

help them to clarity, reframe and summarize their dialogue.

Key notes

i.The qualities that the conflict parties seek in a mediator and are

necessary for an good mediation process and outcome are diverse

and overlapping. An effective mediator must be intelligent and

knowledgeable about the conflict situation. He or she has to be

credible and demonstrate integrity. The mediator has to be

resourceful and imaginative to be able to build the capacity of the

conflict parties to invent creative options to resolve their

disagreement.

ii. The mediator must be tolerance of the conflict parties

emotional outburst and act as a sponge can absorb the conflict

parties frustration, and direct them towards a positive approach to

the problem. This will entail that they are able to focus on the

problem and deal with these issues in the conflict in a positive

way. The mediator must be a catalyst that can help the conflict

parties to change their misperception and be open-minded in

dealing with the issues at stake.

STRATEGIES OF MEDIATION

INTRODUCTION

Mediators have t h r e e m a i n s t r a t e g i e s t h a t t h e y a p p l i e d

i n i n t e r v e n i n g i n a conflict situation. Specifically, mediators may

use one of the following three strategies during the mediation

process. They c a n a p p l y communication-facilitation strategies,

procedural strategies, or directive strategies.

Irrespective of the strategies of mediation adopted by a mediator, as an

intermediary between the conflict parties, the mediator must not make

assumption based on the positions of the disputants (Wall, et al,

2001). It is important to probe deeply to identify their interest

and help them to work together to find ways to achieve these

interest in a mutually satisfactory way. For instance, in a case

involving a dispute between two little girls over an orange. Both girls

take the position that they want the whole orange. Their mother serves

as the moderator of the dispute and based on their positions, cuts the
orange in half and gives each girl one half. This outcome represents

a compromise. However, if the mother had asked each of the girls why

she wanted the orange -- what her interests were --there could have been

a different, win-win outcome. This is because one girl wanted to eat the

meat of the orange, but the other just wanted the peel to use in baking

some biscuits. If their mother had known their interests, they could

have both gotten all of what they wanted, rather than just half.

Communication-Facilitation Strategies

This describes mediator behavior at the low end of the intervention

spectrum. Here a mediator typically adopts a fairly passive role,

channeling information to the parties, facilitating cooperation, but

exhibiting little control over the more formal process or substance of

mediation. T h i s s t r a t e g y i s v e r y r e l e v a n t i n

contextinwhichtheconflictpartiedonot

h a v e direct channels of communication, have different conceptions

of the conflict issues, and/or do not even have the opportunity to

explore any options that might benefit both. In such situations, a

mediator who can facilitate dialogue and communication, and just carry

out information from one to the other, is a prerequisite for an effective

process of peacemaking. Norway's intervention in bringing about the

Oslo Accords in 1993 (in which in fact) is a good example of what we

mean by communication-facilitation strategies.

Procedural Strategies

Enables a mediator to bring both parties together, in some neutral

environment, where they (i.e., the mediator) exert some control over the

conflict management process. Here a mediator may exercise control

over timing, issues on the agenda, meeting place and arrangements,

media publicity, the distribution of information, and the formality or

flexibility of the meetings. Procedural strategies give a mediator the

opportunity to control aspects of interaction. This is very significant for

parties in a conflict that may not have had an opportunity to interact

together in any other place besides the battlefield. Procedural strategies

help to minimize stress and disruption that arise when two or more

conflictual parties who have little history of peacemaking get together to

deal with their conflict.

Directive Strategies

This is the most powerful form of intervention. Here a mediator works

hard to shape the content and nature of a final outcome. This is done

by offering each party in conflict incentives, promises of support, or

threats of diplomatic sanctions. When a mediator engages in such

behavior, the parties are confronted with new resources or the

prospect of losing resources. This may change the value they attach

to their conflict and produce behavior that is more consonant with

the requirements of conflict resolution.

Directive strategies are crucial in any conflict. They allow a mediator to

break through a cycle of violence by changing the factors influencing

the parties' decision making. By making financial or diplomatic support

contingent on co-operation, people who are otherwise opposed to

settlement might be persuaded to agree to one. Directive strategies take

the form of promises of rewards or threats of withdrawals, if certain

agreements are not made or actions are not taken. In either case they are

significant in getting parties in a conflict to change their values and

behavior.

Key notes

Mediators have t h r e e m a i n s t r a t e g i e s t h a t t h e y a p p l i e d

i n i n t e r v e n i n g i n a conflict situation. Specifically, mediators may

use one of the following three strategies during the mediation

process. They c a n a p p l y communication-facilitation strategies,

procedural strategies, or directive strategies.

Communication-Facilitation Strategies: This describes mediator behavior at the

low end of the intervention spectrum. Here a mediator typically adopts a fairly

passive role, channeling information to the parties, facilitating cooperation, but

exhibiting little control over the more formal process or substance of mediation.

Procedural Strategies; Enables a mediator to bring both parties together, in some

neutral environment, where they (i.e., the mediator) exert some control over the conflict

management process. Here a mediator may exercise control over timing, issues on

the agenda, meeting place and arrangements, media publicity, the distribution of

information, and the formality or flexibility of the meetings. Procedural strategies

give a mediator the opportunity to control aspects of interaction.

Directive Strategies; This is the most powerful form of intervention. Here a mediator

works hard to shape the content and nature of a final outcome. This is done by

offering each party in conflict incentives, promises of support, or threats of diplomatic

sanctions. When a mediator engages in such behavior, the parties are confronted with

new resources or the prospect of losing resources.

CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL MEDIATION

INTRODUCTION

Mediation is an effective and useful way of dealing with conflicts. This

is not to suggest that every conflict can be mediated. Many conflicts are

just too intense, a n d c o m p l e x , the parties too entrenched in their

world view and the behavior just too violent for any mediator to

achieve very much. Some conflicts go on and on with little signs of

abatement. They cease to become intractable only when the

conflict parties are war - f a t i g u e , c o u l d n o l o n g e r

mobilize r e s o u r c e s t o c o n t i n u e t o a t t a c k o n e

another, or when there is a major systemic change (e.g.

change of leaders, collapse of country, etc.).

Timing and Knowledge in the Mediation Process

Mediators can engage in a conflict only after a thorough and complete

analysis of the conflict, issues at stake, context and dynamics,

s t a k e h o l d e r s i n t h e c o n f l i c t , , etc. Conflicts are complex and

multi-layered. A mediation initiative is more likely to be successful if it

is predicated on knowledge and understanding rather than on good

intentions only. A good analysis and a thorough understanding of all

aspects of the conflict are important prerequisites for successful mediation

in conflicts.

Mediation must take place at an optimal or ripe moment. Early

mediation may be premature and late mediation may face too many

obstacles. A ripe moment describes a phase in the life cycle of the

conflict where the parties feel exhausted and hurt, or where they may

not wish to countenance any further losses and are prepared to commit

to a settlement, or at least believe one to be possible. In destructive and

escalating conflicts, mediation can have any chance of

success only if it can capture a particular moment when

the adversaries, for a variety of reasons, appear most

amenable to change. Timing of intervention in a conflict

is an issue of crucial importance, and one that must be

properly assessed by any would be mediator.

Given the nature and complexity of conflicts, successful mediation

requires a coordinated approach between different aspects of

intervention. Mediation here requires leverage and resources to nudge

the parties toward a settlement, but also acute psychological

understanding of the parties' feelings and grievances. The kind of

mediation we are talking about here is mediation that is embedded in

various disciplinary frameworks, ranging from problem-solving

workshops to more traditional diplomatic methods. No one aspect or

form of behavior will suffice to turn a conflict around. Diverse and

complementary methods, an interdisciplinary focus, and a full range of

intervention methods responding to the many concerns and fears of the

adversaries, are required to achieve some accommodation between

parties in a conflict.

Mediating conflicts require commitment, resources, persistence, and

experience. Mediators of high rank or prestige are more likely to possess

these attributes and thus are more likely to be successful in

i n t e r v e n i n g i n conflicts. Such mediators have the capacity to

appeal directly to the c o n f l i c t p a r t i e s a n d t h e i r

s u p p o r t e r s and build up support for some peace agreement.

Influential, high ranking or prestigious mediators can marshal more

resources, have better information, and can devote more time to a

conflict. Such mediators can work toward achieving some visible signs
of progress in the short term, and identify steps that need to be taken to

deal with the conflict issues in a way that can facilitates a long term

peace objectives. Influential mediators can work better within the

constraints of conflicts, and more likely to elicit accommodative responses

from the adversaries.

Mediation in conflicts is more likely to be successful when there are

recognizable leaders within each party, where the leaders are accepted as

legitimate by all concerned, and where they have considerable control

over their territory. A conflict between parties with competing leaders

and constituents can prove very difficult to deal with. Where there are

recognizable leaders, each from the mainstream of their respective

community, and where each embodies the aspirations and expectations

of their respective community, the mediation is likely to succeed when

the mediator has the capacity to influence the conflict parties and their

stakeholders to adopt a problem solving approach to finding solution to

their conflict. Where there are competing leadership factions, state

institutions, and governance capacity are all too uncertain, the

chances of successful mediation decline sharply.

Mediation in conflicts is more likely to be effective if there are no

sections in each community committed to the continuation of violence.

Such parties are usually described as spoilers. Spoilers in such a context

have much to lose from a peaceful outcome and much to gain from the

continuation of violence. Their presence and activities constitute a major

obstacle to any mediation effort.

Where a conflict involves a major power, or major powers have

interests (vital or otherwise) at stake, it is very unlikely that mediation

will be attempted, and if attempted, very unlikely that it will succeed.

The involvement of major powers in any capacity in a conflict poses too

serious a constraint on any mediation effort. A major power

involvement in a conflict provides a clear indication of the difficulty of

initiating any form of mediation.

Mediators can engage in a conflict only after a thorough and complete

analysis of the conflict, issues at stake, context and dynamics,

stakeholdersintheconflict.

Mediation must take place at an optimal or ripe moment. Early

mediation may be premature and late mediation may face too many

obstacles.

Given the nature and complexity of conflicts, successful mediation

requires a coordinated approach between different aspects of

intervention.

UNDERSTANDING PEACE

INTRODUCTION

Peace is a latin word that means ‘pax. It connotes the human condition that

engenders inner peace. Peace is thus a state of mind that signify harmony,

order, and social justice (Burgess and Burgess, 1997). Peace can be

conceived both in its positive and negative connotations. Peace refers to

the mere absence of war or organized armed conflict (Evans and

Newnham, 1992). War and peace are seen as two sides of the same coin.

However, peace connotes more than the mere absence of war because

absence of war may not necessarily mean that there is no conflict. Although

the conflict may not be destructive in nature, there may be the existence of
injustice that undermine human wellbeing. In such a condition, the

prevailing state of peace cannot be seen as positive. It is thus a negative

peace. Peace is negative when there is the absence of war, organized

military hostility or direct interpersonal or intergroup violence while the

causes of the conflict remains unresolved. This situation creates condition

for the resurgence of violence. Thus, peace is negative. In its positive

sense, peace is the absence of war and direct violence and the presence of

social justice. There can be absence of war but the presence of indirect or

concealed violence which John Galtung refers to as structural violence.

This has to do with social condition of poverty, exclusion, deprivation,

oppression, intimidation and other forms of injustices. Such a state cannot

be considered as peaceful, even though there is absence of war. Positive

peace is achieved when there is absence of war and direct violence and the

presence of social justice.

Positive Peace

Peace is defined as the political condition that engenders justice and social

stability through formal and informal institution, practice and norms. Peace

is positive when there is a social and political condition that safeguard

human wellbeing (Galtung, 1996). These social conditions must ensure

fairness, fair play, and social justice and gender equality between boys and

girls, men and women. The political conditions that are vital to promoting

positive peace requires that there is legitimacy of policy makers and

implementers in the eyes of their social groups and other groups. There

must be transparency and accountability by the governance system and

state institutions. There must be balance of political power among the

social groups in the society. There must be reliable and trusted conflict
management institution. The state institution must promote good

governance, equality, human rights and security.

Positive peace is essential to the prevention of outbreak of destructive

conflict in the society. Structural condition of poverty, inequalities and

injustice are at the root of conflict that manifest in destructive ways.

Destructive conflict is characterized by violence that lead to loss of lives,

properties, maiming and internal displacement of persons. Such

consequences of destructive conflict retards development and the worsens

the structural conditions that breeds conflicts. A society must always put

in place preventive measures that promotes fairness, equity and justice so

as to prevent the manifestation of structural violence. This connotes that

any society where there is structural violence, cannot be in a state of

positive peace. In such a society there is conflict is latent because there is

injustice which will provoke grievance that will latter explode into

physical violence.

Peace create a conducive environment for socio-economic growth and

development. A peaceful environment will allow business to thrives, and also

allows people to have a good mental state that will enable them to contribute to

societal development. This is only possible in a environment where positive

peace thrives. In such environmental, people are able to realise their full human

potential because of the fulfilment of their basic needs that are essential to their

social wellbeing. The important of positive peace to the attainment of societal

development cannot be overemphasized. It helps to prevent conflict and also to

develop the capacity to manage conflict constructively. Since conflict is an

inevitable aspect of human society, there is always be occurrence of conflict in

the society. What is to be prevented is the outbreak of destructive conflict. Such

conflict feeds on structural violence which provoke deep-seated grievance that

drives violent conflict.

Peace is an essential prerequisite for the attainment of human and society

development. When positive peace is attained, it must be sustained. This

implies that it is not enough to attain positive peace, it is important to put in

place sustained efforts to make the peace durable. Thus, durable peace is

achievable when there is sustained efforts to prevent the manifestation of

structural violence and other forms of violence that provides the conditions for

the outbreak of violent conflict. Positive peace must therefore be durable and

sustainable.

PEACE SUPPORT OPERATION

Introduction

Peace support operation involves an arrays of activities

by regional and international organisations conducted

during period of ongoing internal or interstate conflicts

to minimize civilian casualties, restore normalcy, and

create an environment for the peace agreement and

implementation. It is defined as a multifunctional

operations carried out by military forces and

diplomatic and humanitarian agencies. Peace support

operations are geared towards achieving humanitarian

goals or a long-term political settlement. It is usually

conducted by an impartial military and civilian forces

under the mandate of the United Nations. The arrays

of activities under peace support operation include

peacekeeping, peace enforcement, conflict prevention,

peacemaking and humanitarian operations (British

Army, 1997). In the case of high intensity internal or

inter-state conflict conflicts, efforts to halt the rising

civilian casualties usually necessitate that the

interventions of international community through the

UN mandated peace support missions. The peace

mission is part of the efforts of the international

community to promote global peace and security.

Peace Keeping

Peacekeeping has to do with efforts to maintain

public security, services and ceasefire agreements

in war and conflict zones by the UN or regional

military and civilian forces with the consent of the

nation-state where these forces are deployed

(Demurenko and Nikitin, 1997). It involves

coordinated efforts to ensure stability and relative

normalcy in the aftermath of an intensely volatile

conflict. The peacekeeping mission is mandated

under the UN charter which outlines the objectives

of peacekeeping and serves as the international

mandate. The goal is to create a conducive

environment towards establishing lasting political

settlements.

The scope of peacekeeping operations is broad and

encompasses both civilian and activities such as

food distribution, transportations, other basic

services and establishing safe havens.

Peacekeeping activities conducted by troops from

countries that are impartial and neutral to the

conflict. The peacekeeping mission requires the

consents of the actors in the conflict. Chapter VI of

the UN charter stipulates the objectives of the

peacekeeping mission and also serves as the

international mandates.

Peacekeeping missions have expanded over the

years from the first generation to the third

generation peacekeeping. The first generation

peacekeeping is the traditional peacekeeping

involving observer mission where ceasefire has

been brokered so as to act as a deterrence against

renewed violence. The troop are usually lightly

armed military contingent engaged in the

monitoring, supervision and verification of

ceasefire, withdrawal and buffer zone.

The second generation peacekeeping is a more

comprehensive form of peacemaking in which the

peace keepers support the implementation of a

recently achieved comprehensive settlement. For

the third generation peacekeeping, involving a

humanitarian mandate that is carried out during an

ongoing hostility, the mission lead to the

establishment of safe haven. Examples include the

case of the conflict in Northern Iraq where a UN

mandated peacekeeping force under chapter V1 of

the UN charter was deployed to the conflict zone.

There have been various UN mandated

peacekeeping missions in African including

Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Democratic Republic of

Congo, Sudan, Cote D’Ivoire among others.

Regional organisations like the African Union also

engaged in peacekeeping mission in several

African countries including Burundi, Somalia,

Danfo and Sudan. These operations have facilitated

the signing and implementation of peace

agreement. Peacekeeping requires huge resource

usually provided by the member states of the UN.

Given the high number of violent conflicts,

particularly in Africa that requires intervention,

funding is one of the main constraint to effective

peacekeeping mission in Africa.

Peace Enforcement

Peace enforcement involves multinational military

intervention to impose peace or restore ceasefire by

forces during a situation of high intensity conflict

that have led to high civilian casualties. It can also

be carried out in a situation in which peacekeeping

mission are in danger. The peace enforcement

mandate is under chapter VII of the UN charter

which specify the range of activities under the

mission. It is more of a coercive operation to

enforce compliance with international law, security

council resolution or decision of regional

organisations (Evans, 1993).

Peace enforcement as the name implies is carried

out with or without the consent of the conflict

parties. It is thus less impartial than peacekeeping

mission. The range of activities under peace

enforcement can include the deployment of armed

forces to compel compliance. It also involves the

forcible separation of belligerent in order to restore

order or limit fatalities. It also entails the

establishment of protected zones and the protection

of humanitarian workers.

There are other activities that are activities that fall

under peace enforcement. Such activities involving

the imposition of international arm embargo,

control, and disarmament. It can also involve the

threat or actual use of force which is aimed at

restoring peace by military means such as the case

of Korea (1950-1952) and Iraq (1991).

The imposition of international sanctions against

any of the conflict parties who is not willing to

cease fire is part of the peace enforcement mission.

It can also involve measures to isolate the conflict

and prevent arm deliveries to the areas as well as

preventing its penetration by armed formations. It

also involves the use of air or missile strikes on the

parties that refused to halt its military actions or

cease fighting. The success of the peace

enforcement mission leading to the cessation of

hostility can pave way for the establishment of a

peacekeeping force.

Key notes

Peace enforcement involves multinational military intervention to impose

peace or restore ceasefire by forces during a situation of high intensity

conflict that have led to high civilian casualties

i. Peaec support operation involve peacekeeping which is more

comprehensive form of peacemaking in which the peace keepers

support the implementation of a recently achieved comprehensive

settlement, involving a humanitarian mandate that is carried out

during an ongoing hostility, the mission lead to the establishment

of safe haven. Examples include the case of the conflict in Northern

Iraq where a UN mandated peacekeeping force under chapter V1 of

the UN charter was deployed to the conflict zone. There have been

various UN mandated peacekeeping missions in African including

Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan,

Cote D’Ivoire among others. Regional organisations like the

African Union also engaged in peacekeeping mission in several

African countries including Burundi, Somalia, Danfo and Sudan.

These operations have facilitated the signing and implementation of

peace agreement. Peacekeeping requires huge resource usually

provided by the member states of the UN. Given the high number

of violent conflicts, particularly in Africa that requires intervention,

funding is one of the main constraint to effective peacekeeping

mission in Africa.

ii Peacekeeping has to do with efforts to maintain public security, services

and ceasefire agreements in war and conflict zones by the UN or regional

military and civilian forces with the consent of the nation-state where these

forces are deployed. In the other hand, Peace enforcement involves

multinational military intervention to impose peace or restore ceasefire by

forces during a situation of high intensity conflict that have led to high civilian

casualties. On the other hand, Peace enforcement as the name implies is

carried out with or without the consent of the conflict parties.

PEACEBUILDING

INTRODUCTION

Peacebuilding encompasses a broad range of issues such as security, law social

justice, development, human rights, restorative justice and humanitarian action.

It is defined as the efforts to consolidate peaceful relations and create an

environment that prevents the outbreak of conflict or its escalation to violence

(International Alert, 1995). According to the former UN Secretary General,

Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who popularized the concept of peacebuilding in 1992,

it refers to "action to identify and support structures which can strengthen and

solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict.

Peacebuilding can occur at the pre-conflict and post-conflict stages. At the preconflict stage,
peacebuilding involves efforts that relates to conflict preventions,

which tends to deter the emergence of destructive conflict. Since conflict is

inevitable in the society, it is important to put in place measures to prevent

structural violence that breeds social injustice and manifest in grievance that

spur violent conflict.

At the post-conflict stage, peacebuilding strives to address the causes and

consequences of the conflict. This will require a long term process of rebuilding

the structure of the society that has been affected by the violent manifestation of

the conflict. It will involve dealing with the psychosocial trauma, the wounds of

the conflict, the damages to social and private facilities, mopping up arms in

circulation, disbanding the armed groups and their reintegration back into the

society. Peacebuilding at the post-conflict stage is extensive and expensive to

carry out without the support of regional and international community.

Pre-conflict Peacebuilding

The efforts to prevent the emergence of violent conflict requires putting in place

measures to prevent social injustice, inequity, marginalization, deprivation and

human rights violation. These efforts involve the promotion of good

governance that can deliver public goods and services, basic needs of the people

and security in an equitable manner. The measures to achieve social justice will

also help to deter violent conflict. The roots of grievance that provoked the

manifestation of violent conflicts are linked to these structural issues of

injustice. Pre-conflict peacebuilding is thus the strategy to prevent the outbreak

of violent conflict through measures to reduce socio-economic deprivation, and

build a strong political institution that promote good governance. This is

achieved through promotion of human rights of individuals and minorities,

political democratization and socio-economic development (Reychler, 1994).

Pre-conflict peacebuilding encompasses actions which support political,

economic, social and military measures and structures that can prevent the

emergence of violent conflict or address the roots of conflict (British Army,

1997). The strategies to prevent conflict is very essential to efforts to promote

positive and durable peace. Without such measures, the society will be rife with

social injustices that provoke grievance and agitations by individual and groups

for fairness, equity and justice.

Peacebuilding at the pre-conflict stage is an indispensable aspects of measures

to build strong social and political institutions. It is vital to efforts to sustain

positive peace in the society. It is a continuous effort to promote good

governance, social justice, equity and fair play.

Post Conflict Peacebuilding

The presence of social injustice will inevitably lead to the outbreak of

violent conflict because of the inability to deal with conflict in a constructive

manner. This is usually attributed to systemic issues of marginalization,

deprivation, injustice, inequity and human rights violation that drive structural

violence and its manifestation in physical outbreak of violence. Post-conflict

peacebuilding will require measures to tackle the root of conflict and its

consequences such as loss of lives, bodily injury, emotional trauma and damages

to properties. It will also require efforts to rebuild the political institutions

because violent conflict constitute a threat to the capacity of the government to

protect the citizen and the state.

Peacebuilding at the post-conflict stage encompasses the arrays of actions and

measures undertaken in the immediate aftermath of a conflict, or at the end of

the military phase of a conflict to deter the resurgence of violence or hostilities,

to restore social and political structures and institution capable of preventing the

renewal of the conflict. It also involves restoring trust between the previousl

warring parties, addressing refugee phenomenon, restoration of security and

protection of civilians, rebuilding the society and reforming the security

institution (Demurenko and Nikitin, 1997; Heathershaw, 2013).

Post-conflict peacebuilding is aimed at addressing the root and consequences of

the conflict so as to prevent future resurgence of the conflict. The peacebuilding

measures are broad, extensive and long term. It is much cheaper to build peace

at the pre-conflict stage, than at the post-conflict level. This is because at the

post-conflict stage, the peacebuilding efforts entails dealing with both the root

causes, the civilian casualties, reforming the security institution and rebuilding

and strengthening the political institutions to be able to prevent a relapse into

conflict.

Peacebuilding has to be ‘local-led’ in the sense that it must involve consultation

and engagement with local communities, and designed based on the concerns,

perspectives and capacities of the people affected by the conflict (Campbell, et

al., 2011). Post-conflict peacebuilding requires a lot of material resources and

long term commitment which may not be achievable given the limited resources

of many African states confronting protracted violent conflict and the adverse

consequences of the conflict that reverse the development gains in the affected

state.

Multi-track Diplomacy in Peacebuilding

Introduction

Multitrack diplomacy is a concept

developed by Louise Diamond and John

McDonald as an interconnected set of

tracks that function separately and

interdependently to achieve peace. The

tracks comprise of arrays of actors, both

state and non-state and institutions that

play vital roles in conflict resolution and

peacebuilding. Although each of the tracks

has its own "resources, values, and

approaches", they also function together in

the pursuit of a positive and sustainble

peace. The synergy among the tracks in the

system is critical to efforts to manage and

resolve conflict and build peace.

Multitrack diplomacy is thus defined as a

"systems approach to peace (Notter and

Diamond, 1996)." All the tracks in the

system are essential to efforts to promote

peace and sustain the peace in the long run.

The Multitrack was developed as an

expansion of the distinction made by

Joseph Montville in 1982, between two

tracks, comprising a state institution and

civil society institution. The state refers to

track one (official, governmental action)

and the non-state civil society institution is

known as track two (unofficial,

nongovernmental action). The two tracks

are seen as vital to conflict resolution and

peacebuilding.

The two tracks were later expanded to five tracks in 1989 to encompasses

three other tracks; business, private citizens, and the media. In 1991, the

tracks were further expanded to nine tracks to include research, training

and education, activism, religious institution, and funding. The nine

tracks constitute the multitrack diplomacy as coined by Louise Diamond

and John McDonald who founded the Institute for Multi-Track

Diplomacy (IMTD) in 1992.

Multi-track Diplomacy

Multitrack Diplomacy comprises of nine tracks of actors and institutions that

played critical roles in conflict resolution and peacebuilding. The tracks are

regarded as a system approach to peace because they function independently and

also are interconnected in carrying out their roles in the peacebuilding process.

Track I is government, also known as official diplomacy which has to do with

the roles of the state in peacebuilding. The government responsibility is to

provide public goods and services and promote the wellbeing of its citizenry.

The state institutions are to be developed to deliver good governance, based on

accountability, transparency and promotion of human rights, security and

development. When the government is unable to ensure the wellbeing of the

citizens, this will undermine the peacebuilding process in the society.

Government is also to facilitate the presence of an efficient conflict management

institution that deals constructively with conflict. The government peacebuilding

efforts must also be sustainable so as to deter the emergence of grievance that

manifest in destructive conflict.

Track II is the professional conflict resolution or Non-governmental

organization (NGO), that serves as part of the civil society institution that

complement the efforts of Track I, official diplomacy in the peacebuilding

process. The professional conflict resolution track plays vital roles in effort to

constructively manage conflict and build peace in the society. They provide

critical support to the citizens to complement the efforts of the government. They

also work towards addressing the deficiency in government peacebuilding

efforts. Most of the government in African states, usually tend to adopt a hard

power approach to conflict resolution, while demonstrating low commitment to

tackling the root causes of the conflict. The track II, as professional conflict

resolution provides an alternative approach that involves efforts to address the

causes of the conflict by identifying the concerns, needs, fears and interest of the

conflict parties and devise creative ways of resolving the conflict in a mutually

satisfactory manner. NGOs plays critical roles in peacebuilding particularly at

the local levels. They provide relief materials and other basic needs and services

for the people, especially in areas that government has been lacking in the

provision of adequate public goods and services. NGOs are also involved in

advocacy, providing various forms of public awareness and enlightenment

programmes that can promote wellbeing and security of the people/

Track II is business which has to do with peacemaking through commerce. It

refers to efforts of business organizations to build peace in the society where

they are operating. Business thrives in a peaceful operating environment. Many

business organisations provide infrastructural assistance and other forms of

material support as part of their corporate social responsibilities in their

operating environment. They are also employment generating organization that

assist to address the employment gaps confronting underdeveloped African

states. The business is a wealth generating organization that is vital to effort to

promote the wellbeing of the citizen in a particular state.

Track IV, is private citizens who by virtue of their status, position and power

play critical roles in the peacebuilding process. The private citizens are

prominent individuals who are recognized and well respected because of their

capacity to contribute to societal development. Such individuals may include

eminent public figures, elder statesmen, business mogul and other distinguished

personalities who have the capacities, charisma and resources to support the

effort to promote peace in the society.

Track V, refers to as research, training and education as a vital component of

peacemaking through educational and research institutions. The research

institutes are involved in various project to improve agricultural services,

technical know-how and knowledge as well as science and technology which

are critical to societal development. The educational institutions are vital to

knowledge production and human development. The research and educational

institutions are the think-tank community that provide an analytical framework

for understanding conflict and how best to resolve it. The track is also vital to

peacebuilding efforts because of the roles played in man power and human

capacity development, technical knowhow, skills and capacity building for the

realization of human aspiration and development.

Track VI which is activism is an important component of civil society

organization that serves as the watch dog of the people. The activist serves as

critics of government anti-people policies. It also serves as the mouth piece of

the people and human rights defender. It plays critical roles as a public analyst

that scrutinize government policies to assess its capacity to promote the rights

and security of the citizens.

Track VII is the religious institutions that perform important roles in peace
promotion through sermons to promote peaceful coexistence. The track play

roles of peace advocate through sermons that promote pacifism and nonviolence approach to
conflict. The religious leaders in preaching tolerance, good

neighborliness and social cohesion to their congregation are regarded as vital

agent of peacebuilding. The religious organizations also provide relief and

humanitarian supports to various conflict-affected areas as part of their

peacebuilding efforts.

Track VII is funding which is a vital resource that is essential to the functions of

all the other tracks. The availability and access to funding and its judicious

utilization is critical to the attainment of the goals of the other tracks.

Track IX is the Media or peacemaking through public opinion or communication

serves as the voice of the people. The track is also the channel in which the

government communicate with the citizens. The media is the information

dissemination institutions which facilitate communication between the citizen

and the government. The media which comprises of mass, electronic and social

media are vital to peacebuilding through provision of information. It allows the

government to communicate their activities and polices to the people and also

provide opportunity for the citizen to express their opinion on government

policies and programme. The manner of information dissemination can prevent,

provoke or manage conflict depending on if the right or wrong information is

disseminated. The media should be a peace building institution which provides

timely, and factual information that can facilitate and promote cordial relations

among individual, social groups and the government in the society.

A System approach to Peacebuilding

The multitrack diplomacy is a system approach to peacebuilding given the

interconnectedness between each of the tracks. Although each track has specific
functions, capacity and goal, they are also interdependent on each other to ensure

the effectiveness of their peacebuilding efforts. Track I as official diplomacy

provide support for the other tracks and also depend on them to enhance its

peacebuilding efforts. The non-governmental organization or professional

conflict resolution requires the support of the official diplomacy track in

conducting its activities. The business requires favorable government policy to

facilitate a conducive operating environment. The private citizen provides

support to enhance the efforts of government in the promotion of peace and

development. Each of the tracks offers resources and capacities that can enhance

the functions of other tracks. Since each tracks play key roles in the

peacebuilding process, all the tracks must work effectively to promote their

capacities to ensure effective peacebuilding.

There are three dimension of peacebuilding that are essential to the functioning

of the multitrack diplomacy. The first is political peace building, which pertains

to the efforts of track I as the official diplomacy in building and sustain a strong

political institution that can ensure good governance for the citizens. The

peacebuilding activities of track I must be geared towards promoting human

rights, and security. The second peacebuilding activities is economic and

institutional peace building, which is also regarded as part of the efforts of track

I in facilitating socio-economic development, towards building strong and viable

state institution. In the aftermath of a conflict, the peacebuilding efforts will

focus on rebuilding of infrastructure and state institutions. The economic and

institutional peacebuilding can also be considered as part of the activities of

other tracks whose efforts complemented that of track I. The last aspect of

peacebuilding refers to as social peace building, which is considered as the most

people-centred approach to peacebuilding that focused on promotion of human

wellbeing. It is central to the activities of other tracks in conflict resolution and

peacebuilding. It focused on identifying the concerns, fears, and needs of the

conflict parties and providing a means to arrive at satisfactory outcomes. It

enhances the skills and capacities of the people to deal constructively with

conflict. It equipped the communities with the resources and capacities to handle

conflict through non-violence means. It is about winning the heart and minds of

the people, building the trust and confidence in their capacity to cope with and

bounce back from challenges.

Gender studies focuses on the socially constructed ways in which women,

as well as men are located and differentiated in a given context. Both

women and men have the capacities to play prominent roles in

peacebuilding. Feminist discourse have essentially positioned women as

peacemakers, nurturers and caregivers and men as warlike (Matfess, 2020;

Ripero-Muñiz, 2020)). This notion of women innately peaceful nature

attests to their capacities to act as peacemakers. Yet, women roles in

peacebuilding have largely remained unrecognized and unacknowledged.

Women play prominent roles as caregivers for their families and

communities during peacetime and wartimes (Parkinson, 2013; Henshaw,

2017). Women are also the disproportionate victim of armed conflict.

They faced all forms of gender and sexual based violence, injury,

maiming, loss of children and husband during violence and ultimately

threat to lives (Al-Kadi and Vale, 2020). Despite the disproportionate

impacts of violence on women, they have played formidable roles as

caregivers, nurturers and peacemakers in their communities. Nevertheless,

the adverse consequences of armed conflict on women have led them to

seeking diverse coping strategies. These coping strategies may involve

active participation in conflict, in which women acts as domestic servants,

spies, emissaries, and combatants. While women’s motives for

participation in conflict may be linked to ideology, economic and political

reasons, their active roles in conflict has significant security implications.

In African predominantly patriarchal settings in which men dominates,

women are perceived as subordinate, and marginalized within the sociopolitical structure.
Women’s invisibility has provided opportunities for

armed actors to increasing use women as strategies in wagging their armed

struggles.

The nature of armed struggles at this period makes it imperatives that the

differing experience of women and men in wartimes are well analysed,

understood and factored into the peacebuilding process. It is also

important to understand that women have differing characteristics. While

some women are innately peaceful, some have the capacities to act as

bearers of violence, especially when they faced circumstances that

requires that they seek any means to survive, either fair or foul. The postconflict peacebuilding
process must take cognizance of both men and

women experience, capacities, concerns, fears and tailored the

intervention process to meet their peculiar needs.

Women characterization as peacemakers, nurturer and caregiver place them in a

vantage position as peacebuilder. Yet, women subordination within the

patriarchal structure undermine their contribution to peacebuilding at the local

and national levels. Men are perceived to be war-oriented and women as peaceoriented. Women
are also regarded as vulnerable victims of armed conflict, who

faced all forms of gender and sexual based violence during period of conflict

and peace. Peacebuilding requires the contribution of both men and women

because both are affected by conflict and have differing wartime experiences.
Women as well as men are also involved not just as victim but also actors in

conflict. Women can and have played mirage roles in conflicts that extended

beyond their victimization. Studies have shown that women have capacities for

violence just as men (Henshaw, 2017; Matfess, 2020). At the same time, women

innately peaceful nature, and their roles as mothers, wives, and caregivers placed

them in a position to act as peacemakers.

At the local level, women critical roles in peacebuilding have been vital to the

development of their societies. They play critical roles in the sustenance of their

family through their contribution to food production and sustenance of their

families and communities. They also play major roles in providing care services

for those injured during war time. Despite their important contribution to

peacebuilding, their roles are largely unacknowledged because of their position

of subordination. Women are also marginalized in access to socio-economic

resources in the male-dominated patriarchal structure of their societies. limiting

their empowerment and capacities to contribute to peacebuilding. It is important

that women and men are both recognized as critical agents of peacebuilding,

Gender inequality promotes women marginalization, and unequal access to

socio-economic resources in a way that limit their capacities to contribute

meaningfully to their communities and the larger society.

Women roles in Peacebuilding

The experience has been that whereas women and children suffer most during wars,

they are usually relegated to the background during peace negotiations and postconflict
reconstruction. This should not be so, because without the input of women in

this process arising from their experiences during wars it is impossible to have an

effective post conflict reconstruction.

The bitter experiences of women in times of war often make them strong
agents of peace building and i n t e r v e n e r s i n conflict

resolution. Women will be in a better position to understand the situation of

their fellow women, their plight, needs, concerns and fears. They will be able to

show empathy and concerns for their fellow women. Their status as mothers

make them to be natural caregivers, nurturers, and peacemakers. However,

women’s roles in and contributions to conflict resolution are

underutilized or wholly ignored in mainstream peace building and

constitution making processes. Nevertheless, women all over the world

are devising creative and effective strategies to building peace,

particularly at the local level where the consequences of war continue to

create space for women’s participation in conflicts and necessitate their

involvement in peacebuilding.

Women often face severe obstacles and critical neglect to their needs in

the rehabilitation and reconstruction process, as they struggle against

discrimination at every level in trying to feed and house their families.

Moreover, international donor reconstruction programmes and the

distribution of humanitarian aid often fail to take into account the new

economic and social roles women must fulfill in the aftermath of war.

Their essential needs are thereby inadequately factored in.

We therefore, need to be able to explore the practical needs and strategic

interests that are fundamental to women in post-conflict peacebuilding

reconstruction. Special attention will also be paid to the new economic

roles women carve out for themselves, most often as heads of households.

Conversely, we should note the new challenges faced by women in the

aftermath of conflict, and the prevailing constraint they continue

to face in terms of land and property rights, the needs of ex-combatant

women, etc. Striking examples in this area is reflected in the postconflict experiences of personal
accounts of female combatants during

conflicts. Liberia and Sierra Leone are cases in point.

Although rape and other gender-based forms of violence continue to be

among the highest committed war crimes during times of armed

conflict, they still remain the least condemned. This struggle against

impunity must begin with the strengthening of the legal system and its

responsibility in bringing perpetrators to justice. Furthermore,

addressing the victims’ needs and providing proper medical treatment,

psychological care and financial compensation is crucial and must be

guaranteed. Fundamentally, these crimes must be recognized for what

they are – crimes against humanity.

We need therefore to be conversant with the various roles of women in

the institutions and strategies for post-conflict truth and reconciliation.

The specific needs of women in the aftermath of violent conflict,

especially their need for accountability and justice must be addressed.

The case of Japanese government’s legal responsibility for crimes

committed over fifty years ago, and the more recent tragedies such as

Rwanda’s genocide that is now answering to an established war crimes

tribunal are relevant.

There is a recent report on “Women, War, and Peace,” an independent experts’

assessment by two remarkable women, Elisabeth Rehn and Ellen John Sir leaf. This

report provided a wealth of information on the impact of conflict on women and t h e

needfortheirinclusioninthepeacebuildingprocess.

Equally important, it not only provided “ground truth” from Sudan and

Liberia to Afghanistan and East Timor on the impact of violence,

displacement, trafficking, and other social ills, but also practical

suggestions for avoiding the stigma of victimization.

Indeed, what comes through most clearly from this report is the need to

view women as much more than victims, and to empower them to make

their full contributions t o t h e peace process and in postconflict reconstruction.

This is not just a question of equity or fairness. We know that bringing

women to the peace table improves the quality of agreements reached

and increases the chance of success in implementing, just as involving

women in post-conflict governance reduces the likelihood of returning

to war. Reconstruction works best when it involves women as planners,

implementers, and beneficiaries. The single most productive investment

in revitalizing agriculture, restoring health systems, reducing infant

mortality, and improving other social indicators after conflict is in

women’s and girls’ education. Further, insisting on full accountability

for actions against women during conflict is essential for the reestablishment of rule of law.

From 1995 to 1998, Angola was the site of the world’s largest UN

peacekeeping operation. The UN Special Representative of the

Secretary General was sensitive to gender issues, and there was an

active UN human rights program that forced attention to these issues as

well.

Still, when conflict re-emerged in Angola in 1998 and millions of

displaced persons were in need of emergency relief programs, the

priority was the urgency of getting food to displaced people. This

outweighed the focus on women’s participation in the peace process. It

was later realized during a meeting of the Joint Peace Commission that

brought together the Angolan Government, UNITA, the United Nations,

and the troika nations of Russia, Portugal, and the United States, that

there was not a single woman at the peace table.

It was therefore recognized that a key component for post-conflict

negotiation and reconstruction was missing by not bringing women to

the table to plan for the emergency assistance. Using women’s NGOs to

distribute relief; assigning gender advisors to prevent domestic violence

as ex-combatants returned to their homes; and ensuring women a seat at

the table in the peace talks themselves were realized to be important.

These lessons were particularly useful during the political, economic

and security reconstruction of Afghanistan. Well-meaning experts –

both Afghan and international – told us that the benefits of involving

women in this process were outweighed by the risk of alienating antiTaliban forces and
traditional Afghan leaders whose help was needed in

the fight against terrorism.

Under President Bush of the United States, women’s issues were given a

place at the top of the agenda in the efforts in Afghanistan as the full

participation of women at the political conference in Bonn, the

reconstruction conferences in Washington and Tokyo, and the Loya

Jirga in Afghanistan was realized.

One area where we need to do better is insisting on full accountability

for actions against women during conflict. Whilst the spirit of

reconciliation and forgiveness after c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n is

welcome, but too often, amnesty means that men forgive men for

atrocities committed against women. In Angola, for example, the

Government and the UNITA rebels provided 13 separate amnesties for

each other.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to transitional justice: whether it is

the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, the gacaca

community court system in Rwanda, a human rights commission in

Afghanistan under the Bonn agreement, or international tribunals where

local courts are inadequate, ensuring accountability is essential to

convince men with guns that there is impunity in acting against women.

But words alone cannot l e a d t o w o m e n i n v o l v e m e n t a n d

engagementinthepeaceprocess,itisimportant

toprovidetheneededfinancialresourcesfor

w o m e n e m p o w e r m e n t , and adequate protection for

women in refugee and displaced situations.

Translating Words into Action

For example, the Offices of International Women’s Issues, Women in

Development and Transition Initiatives, and the Bureau of Democracy,

Human Rights and International Labor are assisting women’s

organizations and ministries of women’s affairs, promoting women’s

rights, and involving women in peace-building and post-conflict

political structures.

The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration and the Office of

Foreign Disaster Assistance are addressing women's and girls’

education, psychosocial trauma, special feeding programs, mother-child

health care, and protection services for refugees and internally displaced.

In the United States, the Office of Trafficking in Persons is a catalyst

within the Government and beyond for new efforts to address this

pernicious problem. Within the State Department itself, attention is

being paid to issues related to women in conflict in training programs

for junior, mid-level and senior officers at our Foreign Service Institute.

At USAID, women’s issues have taken center stage. USAID recently

unveiled the African Education Initiative, which will help train 160,000

new teachers, mostly women, and provide scholarships for 250,000

girls. The Clean Energy Initiative will help address the problem of

indoor air pollution from cooking with wood and dung that causes 2

million premature deaths a year globally, especially among women. The

Global Food for Education initiative will provide school-feeding

programme for 7 million school children, with particular emphasis on

girls. Other programmes announced at the World Summit for

Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2001 for clean water,

sanitation, hygiene, small-scale agriculture, and housing also have a

direct and immediate impact on women.

And clearly, the United States’ announcement of a $15 billion program

over the next five years to fight HIV/AIDS in the most highly affected

countries of Africa and the Caribbean will have a dramatic impact on the

status of women, especially through programs designed to attach

mother-to-child transmission of this deadly virus.

There are dozens of countries around the world where women are

systematically excluded from peace processes and post-conflict

governance, and where girls’ access to education, health, and other

social services is minimal. Within many countries, programmes to

address these issues are too often adopted on an ad hoc basis. They

may be poorly coordinated; they often overlap; and each new effort tends

to start from scratch. We can do better in expanding and coordinating

these efforts to ensure maximum effectivenes