Sue Williams, Responding to Conflict

Sue Williams is Director for Policy and Access Skills for Responding to Conflict, based in Birmingham, UK. After five years as a university lecturer, she began working with voluntary agencies: with street children in Haiti (1982-83), at a refugee centre in Botswana (1984), supporting peace efforts of local groups in Uganda (1984-86) and in reconciliation in East Africa. From 1987 - 1991 Sue was involved in political facilitation and mediation in Northern Ireland. Sue and her husband are co-authors of 'Being in the Middle by Being at the Edge: Quaker Experience of Non-Official Political Mediation' based on two years' worldwide consultation (1991-93) with others engaged in political mediation. Sue has also acted as a consultant and trainer in Russia, South Africa, Zaire, Sri Lanka, Australia. the Middle East, Cambodia and Guatemala.

In this presentation, I'll be looking at why opponents need to talk to each other, drawing on my international experience of mediation, and particularly trying to highlight some of the current trends I see in my own work and other situations. This is, after all, the most basic issue in mediation: Why talk? In order to answer it, let's look first at the dynamics of the kinds of situations that mediation tries to address: conflict. As my own experience is in political and social conflict, I shall concentrate on that.

If we imagine a conflicted society, we see two (or more) groups opposed to each other. Much of the visible conflict comes from a smaller militant group, perhaps the leaders or the more committed, wanting to defeat the other side. In order to do this, they try to gain various sorts of power over the other.

They may use direct and/or indirect violence against each other: outright physical attacks, or discrimination and injustice. This raises the stakes, demonstrating their own commitment to winning and testing the commitment of the other side. They may try to get more people on their side, by persuading people from the other side to join them, or by mobilising more active support within their own group. A third option is through alliances or solidarity, by expanding the frame to gain support from people outside the situation.

For all three of these options, there is no need to talk with the other side. Even in attempting to convert them, we are likely to preach at them rather than talk, and we are unlikely to listen. The dialogue is all on one's own side, and anyone who does talk in a human way with the other side is likely to be seen as a traitor.

It is in this context that mediation occurs. Only when a group is prepared to look for a settlement with the other side, instead of or in addition to trying to defeat them, will they consider mediation, negotiation, problem-solving - all processes which expand the frame to include the other side in deciding the outcome. Now there is a need to talk.

The transition is difficult. A willingness to talk to the enemy may be seen as a sign of weakness, a granting of legitimacy, a concession. For this reason, much political mediation has traditionally happened in secret, while public denial of talks continues, right up to the time when a settlement or formal process is announced. This means that the public is often ill-prepared for the change. It can also mean that even the leaders involved in the talks give themselves and their colleagues mixed messages about how and why they engage in mediation.

Usually, it is ordinary people who suffer most from the violence, caught between the sides and used as pawns. Yet those who have suffered most are often the ones who see most clearly the need to talk, because the alternative is to create more suffering. It is often ordinary people who take the risks to make contact with the enemy, and who push the politicians into talking. They also take the talking seriously, holding out for real solutions which bring real change, and not just talks about talks about talks.

In order to see current trends in mediation, here is my rough outline of previous trends, what we might call 'Traditional' mediation.

• The mediators were outsiders, seen as impartial (i.e., anyone inside was seen as partial.) The mediators were usually North American or European, as were their assumptions, approaches, and processes. They were nearly always men, and middle-aged or elderly, often lawyers, diplomats, or politicians.

   

• This form of mediation introduced some new ideas for dealing with conflict. It declared that disputes were best solved by the disputants themselves, with assistance if necessary. It focused attention on process as well as content, trying to get opponents to work together on their shared problems, rather than seeing each other as the problem.

   

• Mediation focused on techniques and models which would move the disputants toward a settlement. It often emphasised communication as a central problem, and risked assuming that the problem could be solved by correcting misunderstandings and carrying messages. Mediators tended to focus on getting people into talks, and presumed that the content of the talks (the political or economic structures, for example) were issues for the disputants and not for the mediators.

   

• It established several important objectives: to meet the needs of all sides, to take into account the experiences and interests of all groups, and to reach a settlement which did not mean that one side would triumph and another be defeated.

   

• It involved working principally, if not exclusively, at the top level - with heads of government, heads of parties or groupings. It presumed that these leaders could make binding agreements, and that face-to-face meetings were a necessary part of the process.

   

• Parties or actors were included because of their perceived power, by reason of election, arms or influence. In cases of unequal power, a determined and realistic side with less power could often achieve its most important aims, by knowing which points were worth fighting for. But if any leaders compromised on issues which their side regarded as essential, they were likely to have difficulty in 'selling' the solution.

   

• It was minimalist, in the sense that it had limited ends, usually the cessation or control of violence.

   

• The process was often opaque, hidden from public view. This was a useful way to create a space where people could try new ideas, get reactions, and build solutions without the pressure of the media spotlight. But sometimes, there was perhaps a tendency to act as though only the mediators needed to understand the process, as though the disputants could be manipulated into a process that would lead them to a settlement whether or not they understood what was happening.

• Teams of mediators are often mixed, including insiders as well as outsiders, or including people from or close to all of the sides involved. When ethnic clashes erupted in northern Ghana, small tribes which were not involved provided mediators, venues for meetings, and monitors to ensure that agreements were kept. They created a core group from the warring tribes, selecting people trusted by their enemies, and the core group made sure that the process was fair for all sides.

   

• Mediation occurs at many levels, involving mid-level and community leadership. In Uganda, for example, a team of mediators shuttled between government and rebels, and also chaired meetings between local army commanders, rebel leaders, and traditional elders. These three groups had very different power balances at the different levels, and the fact that the mediation included all the levels made it easier to balance the power of the overall situation.

  Having mediation at many levels can create new problems. Leaders depend on vertical structures, gaining authority from their position in the hierarchy, with information and decisions moving from top to bottom. People on the ground tend to use more horizontal structures, finding ways to connect with each other, and deriving authority locally. It is not easy to weave these different patterns together, but that is often what needs to happen in order to move forward. South Africa is a case in point, as we shall see.

   

• In general, there is more use of mediation on the ground, and it is more often adapted or re-created to suit the local situation. This is clear in the work Brendan mcAllister and Mediation Network have been doing. In Somaliland, to resolve clan conflicts, influential people in exile as well as those on the spot worked together with international mediators in public discussions that went on for several weeks at a time, all day and much of the night. They used methods which were embedded in long tradition, including ritual, religion, and the right of everyone to hear even though only a few speak and decide.

   

• There is more use of shuttle mediation, working with one side at a time before direct meetings, during direct meetings, and sometimes instead of direct meetings. The Dayton process for dealing with former Yugoslavia is a visible example. Mediators more often concern themselves with the content as well as the process of negotiations. This is partly because more mediators are insiders who know the issues. Also problem-solving as a methodology offers forms of talks where mediators/facilitators work on concrete issues.

   

• There is a stronger awareness that there are many processes, interacting with each other. In Guatemala, for example, people initially expected that direct negotiations at top levels would sort out everything. Now, people see that the mediation can make the space for negotiations, and the negotiations can make the space for all the other work that needs to happen, such as campaigning for new land laws and changing the culture of the army.

   

• Often, mediation has more than one strand. In the Middle East, for example, different commissions work on different issues, such as water, policing, and allocation of land. This means that more people can be involved in talks, and that ifferent topics can move forward at different paces. It also offers the possibility of building confidence in one area which may free another stuck situation.

   

• Mediation more often includes broader participation. In Mexico, for example, a broadly-based group called Convergencia supervises and supports the mediation process itself. In other situations, broader social views are sought by having parallel processes such as the Forum here, and the democratic dialogue in the Basque conflict.

   

• Sometimes, the process is more transparent. The South African Peace Accord had a very visible, televised conference involving many groups. In Guatemala, the mediation process was completely hidden from the public, but the disputants were very clear about what was happening and why.

   

• I see more inventiveness, more creativity at all stages of mediation. The Sierra Leonean mediators constructed confidence-building measures on the spot, the Dayton process enabled mediators to shuttle between disputants who were in almost but not quite the same place at the same time, and the Somali process recovered from the failure of top-down mediation to build on local-level credibility. There have been very interesting mechanisms and structures built to suit the needs of the situation. There are also the separate tables of discussion in Guatemala, unimaginable power-sharing coalitions such as that in Cambodia, and various ways of integrating ex-combatants in Uganda, Nicaragua, and Mozambique.

   

• In general, it seems to me that mediation now is more often seen in its broader framework. There is a more sophisticated understanding of the need for peacebuilding, work for justice and rights, and long-term social change. Mediation only makes sense in the context of all the work that has to be done before and afterward, so that a settlement is not the way to silence the loser, but is the first step in building a society which is genuinely acceptable to all groups.

These changes also reveal some risks and potential problems.

There is often now unseemly competition in mediation, as individuals try to build reputations and charge high fees, and countries try to make a name for themselves. These agendas interfere destructively with the objectives of mediation.

I also see a countervailing tendency not to mediate at all, or to use mediation to wrong-foot the opponent and manipulate public opinion. Examples of this would be Zaire, Rwanda, and the siege in Peru. This is, of course, a way of saying that someone does not see the need to talk. It may be a reminder of the importance of timing, the need to make clear what mediation can offer, and the responsibility of leaders to read the signs and know when their group is ready to move. It also suggests that one dilemma for mediators is how to create the openings so that people who are ready can move toward mediation, while limiting the risk that the opening can be used to discredit mediation or indeed any other form of talking to the other side.