CCTS
Newsletter

by Guus Meijer

Attempting to practice impartiality, neutrality or non-partisanship in third party interventions often poses serious moral and political problems for conflict resolution practitioners. In this and the following two articles, Guus Miejer, Emma Kay and John Lampen report on a workshop organised by the CCCRTE in early July to explore some of these issues.

"What would justify us moving from a 'conflict resolution mode' (or from mediation) into advocacy? Everybody, whether an individual or an organisation, has a bottomline". For me, these words from Greta Brooks, summarise in the most succinct way the questions we discussed during CCCRTE's workshop on conflict resolution and advocacy. Almost 20 people, more than half of them from outside the Committee, participated in this informal workshop at the offices of International Alert on Saturday, 5 July, 1997.

The choice of topic was motivated by the fact that members of the committee often experience the dilemmas posed by the conflict resolution ethos of impartiality, neutrality or non-partisanship, as requirements for third-party interveners. Many conflict situations are characterised by severe power imbalances between the parties, or by clear injustices suffered by one side, e.g. the denial of basic rights. The question is whether and when a so-called 'even-handed' approach can, in such circumstances, be justified morally, politically and practically. In other words, how does conflict resolution relate to the agendas of social and political movements, their struggles against oppression and injustice, and their (nonviolent) action for change? As a field, conflict resolution is often accused of siding with the (often unjust) status quo and with the powers-that-be, of 'pacification' rather than 'peacemaking', and of diverting energies away from necessary (violent or nonviolent) struggles. In the workshop we wanted to look at concrete cases and practical implications, rather than dwell upon the underlying themes.

The day's discussion was kicked off by a former member of the Balkan Peace Team (BPT), who related her experience in Croatia during 1994-95. Often the team found itself in situations where the different aspects of their mandate seemed incompatible. They had been instructed to support local human rights activists, initiatives for conflict resolution and the development of civil society. This gave them plenty of scope to get on with the job. But the different elements, especially the first two, could easily clash. When a Croatian soldier threatened the use of force to remove a Muslim refugee family from the flat in which the city administration had housed them, none of the civil or military authorities were inclined to do anything about it. The BPT could only try and prevent actual violence. The family had to leave. But then the situation changed again when another soldier, who had nothing to do with the original eviction, got permission from the authorities to use the flat. The dilemma then was: whose rights should prevail and what role could, and should, the BPT adopt.

A case like this not only raises questions in relation to the specific people involved (how to resolve the immediate issue), but also the political implications and longer-term consequences of any chosen course of action. The immediate conflict reflects wider structural problems of the relationship between groups (ethnic groups, refugees, army, police, civil authorities), of the abuse of power and of the violation of rights. The team members have to consider how their behaviour will possibly be perceived by different segments of society and how those perceptions can influence the prospects of their organisation to be able to work in the area. A constructive approach in the immediate situation often can do without publicity, but this may leave the structural needs unaddressed. On the other hand, a shift from a neutral role into political engagement may preclude the playing of any constructive neutral third party role in the future.

Most of the remainder of the day was spent in smaller groups and at the end we met again to see where we had got to. The question of organisational mandates turned out to have been central to many of the discussions. How do necessarily rather abstract mandates relate to 'human engagement' in concrete situations, which, by definition, are more immediate than long-term, and more personal than structural?

The aims of the workshop were to jointly explore the tensions and (in)compatibilities between 'advocacy' and 'conflict resolution', to exchange experiences and views, and to think about the implications for our own practice (as trainers and facilitators, and/or as interveners) and the practice of colleagues and partners. One of the tentative conclusions was that mediatory roles and advocacy -- whether for a specific partisan cause or for universal values such as human rights or democracy -- are often in conflict and cannot be pursued at the same time by the same person or organisation without serious confusion and potential harm. In certain situations, however, a form of combination seems possible; for instance, in the struggle against apartheid, where a clear anti-apartheid position has in certain cases gone together with attempts (on the part of insiders and outsiders) to make the transition as peaceful as possible and to prevent total onslaught. Cf. also Nelson Mandela's recent involvement as a 'mediator' in the Zaire/Congo conflict: the question was not whether Mobutu had to go, but rather how power could be transferred without too much bloodshed and destruction.

newsletter  |  ccts