How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
ABSTRACT
The fact that conflict is all around us epitomizes the fact that it is inalienable with living. Near and far, directly or indirectly, we all deal with and experience conflict. Issues of conflict encompass us subtly or in escalation. Conflict is part of life; daily encounters are embedded with conflicts. Conflict is not negative; it should be viewed in a positive light. It is an expression of human diversity and richness. Conflict is, therefore, not an issue for avoidance but should be seen as a means to a good end. The only problem with conflict is violence. However, whether a conflict is peaceful or escalated into violence, there is still hope for peace.
This paper substantiates the possibility of peace in conflict with examples of several resolved conflicts and a hope for peace even amid several ongoing violent conflicts. It underlines the achievements of mediators in conflict resolution in the past and the hope for the future. Alternative dispute resolution, particularly mediation, has come to stay, and the role of mediators cannot be overstated. The intervention of an impartial mediator makes a difference in the lives of conflicting parties. The mediator needs to get to the root of the conflict to avoid a reoccurrence, and aims to encourage the conflicting parties to build a relationship while they are in conflict and after a resolution. I therefore refer to a conflict as a painful gain. The benefits are enormous when there is an amicable resolution between conflicting parties. The parties to a conflict can understand their differences and see the beauty in a resolution. Their relationship is strengthened, or perhaps a new relationship is created.
Editorial note: the references to ongoing armed conflicts and the assessment of the parties involved reflect the author’s own perspective. This journal’s editorial position is neutral. *
KEYWORDS *
Conflict, mediation, peace, escalation, root causes, timing of intervention, humanitarian corridors, women in conflict, natural resources, enforceability, alternative dispute resolution, relationship building
INTRODUCTION
The core nature of man is conflict. History has recounted conflict as part of existence. Families, clans, villages, towns, and countries constantly conflict. Whether as a creationist or an evolutionist, the beginning of the world pictures the world’s existence hand in hand with conflict. The Big Bang theory of the universe’s birth identifies and buttresses some form of conflict. Humans, therefore, are prone to conflict as individuals, small and large groups. Conflict arises for several reasons, but the unmet needs of parties are the reason for most conflicts.
Issues of conflict within families are similar to those within larger societies. It is easy to think that less important things cause conflicts within smaller groups than international conflicts. It is, however, interesting to know that the cause of conflict within and amongst family members is similar to the cause of disputes amongst nation-states. Conflicts are, therefore, a natural part of human existence. However, violent conflict is not. History has shown the disadvantages and consequences of an escalated conflict. Violence and war have occurred and are still occurring due to conflict.
Resolving conflicts brings peace, relationship building, and a better understanding of the conflicting parties. A nonresolution might result in violence and war, which have occurred several times in the past and at present. The world at large has not learned from the falls of a violent conflict, the loss of lives and property, and the psychological and emotional trauma that is passed from generation to generation. Instead, the plunging into violence has continued and is seen today in both the local and international communities. The call for peaceful resolution of conflict is at the four corners of the world. An amicable resolution of dispute is encouraged in all ramifications of life, the family, the workplace, communities, and the world.
This paper will look at conflict with the eyes of positivity, mediation, the difficulty of mediation in times of crisis, and the need for a peaceful existence amid conflict.
MAIN CORPUS
To stop a conflict
Conflict is beneficial to man and is an essential part of any organization or community. It is a natural occurrence within all living things, especially humans. Conflict in itself should not be seen as negative. It is the handling of a conflict that determines its outcome because, “Conflict is neither positive nor negative in and of itself. Conflict is an outgrowth of the diversity that characterizes our thoughts, our attitudes, our beliefs, our perceptions, and our social systems and structures.”
Conflict should, therefore, not be considered objectively; a situation where people who co-exist do not conflict should be concerning. A saying of the Yoruba in the western part of Nigeria, West Africa, sees a lack of conflict between people that co-exist as deceitful.
Conflict is the expression of people’s individuality, the colorfulness of their minds and thoughts. The diversity between people is what makes the community vibrant. These attributes should be considered positive and not be the cause of violence of any kind. For example, in a family of multiple children, there is a diversity of opinions, and so is there in our society and the world. The conflicts that arise within families translate into societies. Diversity is a healthy aspect of human society. Diversity can open up possibilities, challenge us to consider alternatives and keep us from allowing ourselves to stagnate. We need to celebrate diversity, not fear it or perceive it as a threat.
An attempt to prevent or cover up conflict is in no way a solution and does not make a society or organization peaceful. It could cause an escalation if the cause of the conflict is not addressed. Conflicts should therefore not be prevented; however, parties to a conflict should attempt to resolve their issues. When parties are unable to resolve their issues, the need to resolve with the facilitation of a third impartial party is encouraged. The intervention of a third party, a peacemaker, or a mediator will assist in resolving conflict where parties cannot resolve. The peacemaker acts as a facilitator to assist the parties in understanding their issues and coming to an amicable settlement.
Addressing a conflict through mediation
Mediation has become a welcome process of dispute settlement between disputing parties at the local level and within the international communities. It is the most favored ADR activity. Mediation not only resolves disputes between parties but also builds the relationship between the parties. It is a process of listening and moving to interests from positions.
In the international community, mediation has produced more positive results than other means of conflict resolution. The interference of a third impartial party is more acceptable to parties than other forms of conflict resolution. The peacemaker is a facilitator who assists the parties in understanding their issues and coming to an amicable settlement.
In the international community, the advantages of mediation are more evident. This is partly because, in international law, court decisions are unenforceable. Decisions by the ICJ, for example, do not have the enforceability of decisions within a nation-state. Nation-states cannot be held accountable by territorial and international courts in the same way. Israel has turned a deaf ear to the recent judgment of the International Court of Justice.
Sanctions imposed on countries sometimes have little or no consequence for those countries. When sanctions are imposed on countries by stronger ones, they can overcome economic sanctions imposed on them by finding necessary solutions. For example, Russia has found alternate buyers for its petroleum. Despite sanctions from the United Kingdom and the United States, Russia has been selling petroleum to India. On the contrary, countries usually adhere to agreements made by them, and there is usually no need for enforcement or the imposition of sanctions when their needs have been addressed in a mediation process.
Parties are in conflict because they have been unable to solve their problems. Parties’ inability to solve their problems could cause the conflict to escalate into violence or make the parties seek a third-party intervention. Escalation of a conflict can result in threat and violence. The result of violence is the loss of lives and property and usually the loss of the contested issue of conflict. However, “escalation of a conflict cannot continue indefinitely; one way or the other, the crisis will lead to an outcome.” In an escalation, either one party wins, some demands are made and met, or a third party intervenes. Whether the conflict has escalated or not, the handling of the issues is as important as the issues themselves.
In conflict resolution, the peacemaker can be an international organization, for example the United Nations, a more substantial or well-respected country, for example the United States of America, a former president of a country, for example Jimmy Carter, or a professional or informal mediator. The intervention of a peacemaker might prevent a conflict from escalating.
In mediation, the parties own the floor and should be allowed to solve their issues. The mediator encourages dialogue between the parties within a safe environment where the parties can share views and concerns without restrictions. The mediator helps the parties to identify their needs and stake in the conflict. The parties are made to understand their ability to make choices and also understand the implications of the choices that they make.
The timing of an intervention is crucial for the resolution of a dispute. International organizations should recognize when a conflict is brewing and when an escalation is possible. A late reaction to an international conflict can result in extreme loss of human lives, property, and perhaps the issue in conflict. A timely intervention is, therefore, key to a successful handling of a conflict. The cable networks have broadcast the war between Israel and Palestine and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Perhaps this is the result of a late response from the United Nations and negotiators on the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Also, there was a significant sign of certainty of an emergence of war between Russia and Ukraine. Maybe more efforts at intervention at the earlier stage of conflict would have made a difference in what occurs now.
Root of the conflict
Conflicts usually do not start suddenly. An interview of disputing parties is bound to show biases, grudges, or links of such to amount to a conflict. The cause of a conflict can be missed if the mediator or third party does not diligently dig deep. In civil wars, issues within communities do not begin in a day. In the international community, relationships between nations decline with time. Indeed, Vladimir Putin made no secret of Russia’s plan to invade Ukraine. The issues of conflict between Russia and Ukraine had been in the pipeline.
The conflict between Israel and Palestine did not start with the attack carried out by Hamas in October 2023. Perhaps it started in 1948 when the United Nations partition plan led to the establishment of Israel. The conflict between Israel and Palestine could have been influenced by stories passed down centuries ago. The war that has escalated into the greatest of wars between the two sides is a build-up of deep-rooted issues. To successfully resolve a conflict, the peacemaker must address the real issues of conflict. A resolution that does not address the real reason parties conflict will cause a reoccurrence that might pose a worse situation than the previous one. To effectively address a conflict, it is cogent that the mediator knows the cause of the conflict. To understand the conflict, the mediator has to know and understand the background of the parties.
The mediator must also empathize with the parties’ feelings and recognize why the parties feel a particular way about an issue. The mediator must be able to wear the parties’ shoes, understand why the parties hold dear what they do and why they feel the way they feel about the issue.
Causes of conflict
Conflicts and resultant wars have ravaged both international and local communities. Reasons for these conflicts vary, and they are specific and peculiar to individual parties. The things that people hold dear vary from person to person and community to community. Competition between people, communities, and at the international level is healthy. In the international community, “as long as the competition between states takes place within the boundaries of conventional diplomacy, international conflict is not problematic.” It is the escalation of the conflict through forceful confrontation and violence that is unacceptable.
One of the overwhelming causes of conflicts within and between nation-states is the existence of land and natural resources. War and violent conflict emerge “whenever the potential development of an individual or group is held back by the conditions of a relationship, and in particular by the uneven distribution of power and resources”. The rise in prices of necessities like oil, food, and shelter, the emergence of militant groups as seen presently in Haiti, and the violation of basic fundamental human rights are some other causes of wars.
The coexistence of communities of similar ancestral history and ties has been strained due to their struggle for land and natural resources. These communities, however, have more in common than their diversity. Communities, no matter how diverse, are able to find some commonality in their histories if attention is given to their similarities rather than their differences. Boundary nations might even have the same ancestors if traced.
The devastating effect of an escalating conflict can be avoided if the cause of a conflict is properly handled. For example, the conflict between Nigeria and Cameroon on the Bakassi peninsula would have resulted in a brutal war if not well handled by the leaders of the two countries. The adherence to the decision of the ICJ was done because the parties wanted a settlement and not a violent conflict. The wars between Pakistan and India have been about territory and natural resources. The two countries have survived many wars, which could have been avoided. A conflict on shared natural resources between states should lead to an agreement on equitable access and not war.
The lack of good governance within countries, the withholding of energy supplies, human rights violations, and environmental degradation are also reasons for conflict. The genealogical information passed down from generation to generation is also a reason for conflict. There are conflicts where parties are not fully aware of the reason why there is friction between them and the other party. The victims of war in the Gaza region and Israel at present do not know how the conflict in the region started. It is notable that “the Arab-Israeli conflict is now in its seventh decade. An earlier conflict between the small Jewish and the much larger Arab community in Palestine had first erupted in the late Ottoman period”. The cause of the conflict between Israel and Palestine is, therefore, one that has been present for longer than the current occupants of both territories have lived. The parties have continued to wage war against each other at the slightest provocation due to stories and information passed down.
Mediation in crisis
Unresolved conflicts result in crisis, war, and violence. This is because: “Conflict is the pursuit of needs and desires that are in contradiction with each other. Such needs have potential of many kinds. They may include, the list is endless, material needs such as resources, political needs such as a grasp on levers of power, and subjective needs in relation to identity.”
It is easiest to infer and settle disputes when parties are still in disagreement with each other. When there is no external influence, the parties can find solutions to their problems. Any mediator would have an easy sail when two parties are still upset and in a state where they can listen to each other’s grievances.
The mediator can find the conflict’s sole actors at this time. The parties are identifiable and can effectively communicate with each other. The parties are still pacifiable and have not involved other sympathizers or interest groups in their conflict. At this early stage of conflict, mediation rules are easier to follow. The parties are within reach, are present on set, and the relationship-building can start.
When a conflict has escalated, or there is already an outbreak of war, the issues become complicated. The sympathizers on each side of the conflict make the issues worse. The conflict might even become extensive, with more parties becoming involved. History has it that the Second World War started with the Nazi invasion of Poland. The war between Israel and Palestine could revert to a wider regional war if it continues.
It is recorded that “throughout the decades of low-level conflict, the indigenous Palestinian Arabs were supported and helped by a large part of the Arab world.” At that point, the parties to this present conflict would be Israel, Palestine, Hamas, and some other countries within the Arab nations. At present, bringing the stakeholders together at a table is getting as complicated as it could be. The war was supposedly between Hamas and Israel, as broadcast by the cable and local news and by Israel itself. The least politically aware person knows that this war has affected not only the Hamas militant group but, majorly, the Palestinian people.
Mediators might have to lay aside the dispute settlement during war and crisis and save lives. The task of the mediator, therefore, becomes severalfold. The urgency of specific issues takes precedence over the settlement of the disputes. The negotiators involved in the Israel and Palestine war have, therefore, resorted to working within the humanitarian corridor. The release of the hostages and the provision of food and medical supplies have taken preeminence over a ceasefire.
Mediation in crisis is, therefore, not the same and could be more complicated in times of conflict. In times of violent conflict, the tasks of the mediators become more complex. Mediation is now beyond an amicable settlement of disputes between parties. The initial conflict issues would have given birth to more issues that must be addressed for peace to occur.
Human rights violations are at their highest during a violent conflict. Women and children are mostly vulnerable during crisis or war, and boys are recruited as soldiers in war. Even though there has been a role change between men and women as regards participation at the war front, women and children are mostly at the receiving end of a war. The stake of women is higher compared to that of men. “Women become the bearers of the culture that the men are fighting to defend.” They are victims and partakers of the war. “Women and the girl child are exposed to unwanted and highly traumatic pregnancies, HIV and other transmitted diseases.” Despite the effect that violent conflict has on women, they are usually excluded from negotiation and the process of settlement.
In a crisis or war-torn situation, reaching a peace agreement between the parties can take more time than a non-violent conflict. The mediation process becomes delayed, which is one of the benchmarks of mediation. The war situation sometimes negatively affects the efforts of the mediators or negotiators. The parties are seen within the purview of crisis and chaos. It is difficult to decipher which party intends positive actions as both sides are involved in the various violations. In war times, “best intentions, however, might not bear fruit if the environment is too hostile.”
Ethnic issues that have resulted in civil wars and generational issues resulting in violent conflict within nation-states therefore make mediation a more difficult task. Also, more deadly conflicts may increase the level of hostility and might often entail feelings of hatred and vengeance that linger on after the end of a war, thereby reducing the willingness of the parties to honor a peace agreement if one exists. Even if a conflict is temporarily ended, through victory or settlement, hostile parties may only await a new opening in the political opportunity structure to strike again, especially if they feel that the underlying issues have not been addressed. A peace settlement or mediation might become impossible. A long time or permanent peace might also be impossible after a war. Though it is clear that mediation during times of war and violence is difficult, it is still worth trying, and peace is possible. The United Nations and international organizations have not relented in their efforts for a peaceful world.
SUMMARY *
The article’s organising claim is that conflict and violence are separable, and that the whole of mediation practice rests on that separation. Conflict expresses diversity and is unavoidable; violence is a way of conducting conflict and is not. From this the author derives the case for third party intervention and, more distinctively, an argument about sequence: the earlier a mediator arrives, the fewer parties there are, the more identifiable they remain, and the more capable they are of hearing one another. Once violence has begun, constituencies form, sympathisers attach themselves, both sides accumulate conduct that disqualifies them in the eyes of the other, and the mediator’s task changes in kind rather than in degree, from settling a dispute to keeping people alive.
CONCLUSION
Can man engage in conflict without it resulting in violence? There have been more resolved conflicts than escalated ones. If all the conflicts that exist or have existed resulted in violence, everyone would be against one another as this paper is being written. Indeed, negotiation, mediation, and amicable settlements, whether formal or informal, have saved the world from much chaos. In the last century or so, more than a hundred million people have died in wars. The figure does not include the many who have been murdered by politically repressive regimes or the victims of the terror sometimes evoked in response to them.
The conflicts that have, however, resulted in violence have shocked the world and its communities. A picture of the current wars has made the effect of violent conflict more evident. The war between Russia and Ukraine has affected other countries’ food and oil supplies, especially third-world countries. Citizens of Palestine have become refugees in other countries. Is a dream for peace beyond the world’s reach?
The 1994 UNICEF collection of children’s artwork titled Dream of Peace speaks volumes to the current occurrence in the world today. The Dream of Peace, a collection of children’s artwork from the former Yugoslavia, can prompt children to discuss their own visions of war and peace and to express them through artwork. Where books are in short supply, children can be encouraged to produce books of their own. These may contain real-life stories of how they have dealt with conflict, fictional stories, and children’s own poems, songs, and drawings on themes of peace. Does a dream for peace seem beyond the reach of the world’s citizens?
Peace is not a far-fetched idea. It is not a world without conflict, but where conflicts are resolved and not allowed to destroy but to build. Peace is a world where children’s and adults’ rights alike are protected. A place where children can go to school and feel safe. Where people, communities, and nations alike understand their differences as gifts and not curses. This is a world of peace and tranquility. A dream for peace starts from the home, the early school every child attends. The need for peace is taught directly or indirectly in schools, associations, and communities. Is peace a dream? At present, conflict has resulted in so much harm affecting children born and unborn in a way that perhaps the world has never experienced before. Amicable settlement of disputes is a welcome approach to dispute resolution in every society, place of work, and the international community. The children will continue to dream of peace, and so will all men imagine a world without war and violence.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
The article’s argument about timing is the most useful thing in it and carries an implication the author does not draw. If intervention is easiest before violence begins, then the great majority of mediation resources are deployed at the point of least effectiveness, because conflicts attract attention when they become violent and not before. That is not a failure of mediators but of the systems that dispatch them, and the corrective is institutional: standing early warning capacity connected to standing rapid response, funding that does not require a crisis to be released, and diplomatic presence maintained in places where nothing is currently happening. Every serious review of prevention has reached the same conclusion, and the obstacle has never been analytical but budgetary and political.
The observation about humanitarian corridors deserves to be elevated from an aside to a category. What the author describes is not a compromise forced on mediators but a recognised form of practice: humanitarian negotiation, conducted by different people from those pursuing political settlement, with different objectives, different counterparts and different measures of success. Its practitioners negotiate access, safe passage, the treatment of the detained and the movement of the wounded, and they do so with whoever controls the ground regardless of that party’s standing. Confusing the two tracks damages both, since a humanitarian negotiator who is thought to carry a political mandate loses access, and a political process that depends on humanitarian outcomes acquires hostages to its progress. Keeping them separate and connected is a design question with an established answer.
The point about the exclusion of women can be stated with the evidence that supports it. This is not only an equity claim: agreements concluded with the substantive participation of women have been found significantly more likely to be implemented and to endure, and the mechanisms are identifiable, since women’s organisations have typically been engaged with the affected population throughout the fighting and bring information and constituencies that formal delegations lack. That converts the argument from one about fairness, which can be deferred, into one about durability, which cannot.
Two qualifications would strengthen the analysis. The claim that international judgments are unenforceable is broadly true and not uniformly so: compliance with International Court of Justice decisions in bilateral disputes has historically been substantial, and the Bakassi case the author cites is itself an example, resolved because a judgment, a mediation process led by the Secretary General and a bilateral commission worked together. That combination, rather than the choice between adjudication and mediation, is the transferable lesson. And the framing of intractable conflicts as the product of stories passed down understates what is contemporary in them: land, water, movement, security and political rights are present disputes with present remedies, and treating them as inherited enmity risks the fatalism the article otherwise resists.
Finally, the article’s closing turn to children and to education names something the field consistently undervalues. The capacities that make conflicts survivable, the ability to hear an account one dislikes, to distinguish a position from an interest, to separate a person from their conduct, are learned or not learned long before anyone reaches a negotiating table. Peace education has weak evidence of preventing wars and reasonable evidence of changing how individuals handle disagreement, which is a modest claim and the right one. It is also the work available to every reader of this journal, in schools, workplaces and families, on the days when nothing dramatic is happening.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES
Eliasson, Jan. 2009. Peace-making Under the United Nations Flag: Reflections on a Quarter Century of Mediation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiQXte28e0A Accessed March 14, 2024.
Young, Enda. 2019. Conflict Resolution, Mediation, Conflict Resolution Techniques, Mediation Process, Negotiation. William J. Clinton Leadership Institute at Queen’s University, Belfast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAX7ujNYzBA Accessed September 20, 2023.
Eriksson, Jacob. Small-State Mediation in International Conflicts: Diplomacy and Negotiation in Israel-Palestine. London: I. B. Tauris and Company, Limited, 2015.
Frantzman, Seth J. “The Lingering Conflict: Israel, the Arabs, and the Middle East 1948 to 2011, by Itamar Rabinovich.” DOMES: Digest of Middle East Studies 22, no. 1 (Spring 2013): 183 to 185.
Gurses, Mehmet, Nicolas Rost, and Patrick McLeod. “Mediating Civil War Settlements and the Duration of Peace.” International Interactions 34, no. 2 (April 2008): 129 to 155.
Herre, Bastian, Lucas Rodés-Guirao, Max Roser, Joe Hasell and Bobbie Macdonald. War and Peace. https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace Accessed March 30, 2024.
International Center for Ethno-Religious Mediation. 2015. The Role of Mediation in the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes with Ethnic and Religious Components. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Wk1-2a2E0 Accessed October 20, 2023.
Kleiboer, Marieke. 1996. “Understanding Success and Failure of International Mediation.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 40, no. 2. Sage Publications.
United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. 2015. Launch of Natural Resources and Conflict: A Guide for Mediation Practitioners. Accessed March 14, 2024.
Ahtisaari, Martti. 2007. The Role of Inter-Governmental, State and Non-Governmental Players in Conflict Resolution. London School of Economics.
Rabinovich, Itamar. The Lingering Conflict: Israel, the Arabs, and the Middle East 1948 to 2012. Blue Ridge Summit: Brookings Institution Press, 2012.
United Nations. 2012. Guidance for Effective Mediation.
Weeks, Dudley. 1992. The Eight Essential Steps to Conflict Resolution. First Edition. Los Angeles and New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.
World Mediation Organization. Mediation and Conflict Management. Berlin.
Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team
United Nations Secretary General and World Bank (2018). Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
International Committee of the Red Cross and Centre of Competence on Humanitarian Negotiation, professional standards and field manuals on humanitarian negotiation.
Krause, J., Krause, W., & Bränfors, P. (2018). Women’s Participation in Peace Negotiations and the Durability of Peace. International Interactions, 44(6), 985 to 1016.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) and the Guidance on Gender and Inclusive Mediation Strategies (2017).
International Court of Justice, Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, judgment of 10 October 2002, and the Greentree Agreement of 12 June 2006.
Zartman, I. W. (2001). The Timing of Peace Initiatives: Hurting Stalemates and Ripe Moments. Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 1(1), 8 to 18.
Salomon, G., & Cairns, E. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook on Peace Education. Psychology Press, New York.
