In The Middle: by Adam Curle Introduction These pages deal with just one of the many activities aiming to create, maintain or restore the state of harmonious, constructive cooperation and just living together that we call peace. I would distinguish three main strands, all equally necessary, of these activities. One comprises all that we do to establish and nurture social and economic systems that minimise the inequality and want that generate conflict. The second is to act by all available non-violent means (I stress non-violence because it is an illusion to hold that peace can come through violence although it may come through power) against dangerous, violent, aggressive and oppressive policies. The third is to bring about reconciliation between those who are in conflict. I am concerned here with the third strand, which is itself divided between mediation (or conciliation which is usually used almost synonymously), negotiation and arbitration. Mediation, as I uses the term, aims to remove often largely psychological obstacles that prevent hostile parties coming together for constructive negotiation, which is the process by which protagonists reach an agreement through discussion and bargaining. In arbitration, the protagonists agree to accept the judgement of a respected third party. Reconciliation is a less specific term implying the restoration of friendship, and could in many ways also be applied to mediation. Most of what I have to say is based on direct experience of fairly large-scale violent conflict over the last two decades. During this period I have been actively involved in mediation for twelve years. I do not mean that I was, so to speak, in the field all the time. When I was not, however, and getting on with my normal life, I was still on call and the issues of the conflict were always simmering on the back burner of my consciousness. For two reasons I do not recount the actual narratives of this work. Firstly, two of the mediations I have been involved with, The India-Pakistan war of 1965 and the Nigerian civil war (the Biafran war) 1967-70, have already been comprehensively written up by Yarrow (1978). Secondly, because the main issues and the actors with whom I have been embroiled in the last fifteen years, are still alive. But I have of course made ample use of the lessons and have transcribed suitably disguised conversations that I hope convey the flavour of the task. Throughout these pages I make a number of generalisations about behaviour, especially by leaders, in situations of violent conflict. I have sometimes been asked whether cultural difference and the misunderstandings to which they give rise, do not make great difficulties for peace making in general and mediation in particular. They certainly may do so, and it is important for mediators and negotiators to understand them as much as possible. But they seem to me to constitute little more than variations on patterns which are, in my experience, more or less universal. I therefore discuss these general patterns rather than the somewhat different ways in which they may be manifested in different cultures. These can readily grasped by those who understand the general principles. Much of the work has been carried out under the auspices of the Society of Friends (Quakers) and I feel privileged to have been an heir to their three-centuries-long tradition of peace making, and to have worked with and learned from so many of its great exemplars, among whom I have especial gratitude and respect for Walter Martin, Roger Wilson and the late Mike Yarrow. I would not, however burden them with responsibility for what I have written; the views I have expressed and the conclusions I have drawn are a personal interpretation of what I have myself experienced, and the flaws and mistakes are all mine. I begin by discussing the psychological and other factors that make peace making difficult. The next two sections deal with the principles of mediation and the practice of mediation. In the evaluation, the effects of mediation are considered and, finally, a short but important proposal for promoting mediation is presented. The more I have pondered on the nature of violent quarrels and on the means of bringing them to an end, the more I have become convinced that mediation could be developed as a sovereign remedy for the scourge of conflict. But we need to know more about it and to practice it more widely and more systematically.
|
