Justpeace

rr48.gif (8585 bytes)

Indigenous Conflict Resolution - Abkhazia

http://www.hypatia.ss.uci.edu/gpacs/abkhazia/tradition.html

This is an abridged version of "Mediation in the Caucasus" by Paula Garb. The article was published in Anthropological Contributions to Conflict Resolution. London and Athens. University of Georgia Press. Vol. 29. 1996.

The Mediators

The primary mediators of any conflict among the Abkhazians have always been respected elders, usually males, and ordinarily those around 50 and older. Age in that culture with an unusually high percentage of long-lived people is associated with wisdom (Benet 1974; Garb 1987). The formal mediation institutions are the councils of elders that function only when called upon to settle a conflict. However, any elders, not necessarily serving on a council, may be asked to mediate. They may even be relatives of the conflicting parties, if the dispute is not major. Several mediators are usually called in, the more the better, and preferably those who live a good distance from the disputants or are not among the interested parties.

In the Assembly elders also play an important role. From its outset the Assembly instituted a Council of Elders in addition to its Coordinating Committee. This is because elders are mediators in all these cultures, and were instrumental in organizing the Assembly. Even before the Assembly was founded, the elders of the various groups played key roles in the recent tensions that have arisen, for instance, between the Ossetians and the Ingush over disputed territory. And the elders of the Chechen, Karachay, Ingush, and Adyghey, to name just a few groups, were consulted by their youth who wanted to help the Abkhazians during the armed clashes with the Georgians in July 1989. In fact, it was during and right after these events that the idea for the Assembly was conceived.

Councils of Elders among the Ingush are influential and it is to their credit that the conflict with the Ossetians did not get completely out of control, despite the high passions. According to informants, the Ingush youth wanted to fight the Ossetians for the territory in dispute, but the elders held them back.

It is noteworthy that while the Assembly had a Council of Elders, the Abkhazian People's Front did not. Sergey Shamba, the head of the Abkhazian People's Front explained to me that "In these political issues the elders just don't have any influence, or very little."

Women in Abkhazia, as well as among other Caucasian peoples, have traditionally played an important peacemaking role. Throughout the Caucasus a woman could instantly stop a fight by throwing her scarf between the combatants. In some of these cultures, those least affected by Islam, women were active in mediating and major decision-making. This has always been the case in Abkhazia, where women belong to councils of elders and can be asked to mediate conflicts. Women, however, are usually a minority in these councils and policy-making bodies, but when they do participate they are especially highly regarded. As one male informant explained, "For a man it's almost enough for him to have lived long to serve as a mediator, but if a woman is involved it means she is a person of particular wisdom."

Women are not always regarded as peacemakers. Both men and women informants often pointed out that women can also fan a conflict and impede mediation. Some made a distinction between young women and older women, claiming that older women tend to be peacemakers, whereas young women are inclined to be more fiesty. "Elderly Abkhazian women would rather have a bad peace than a good war," said an elderly Abkhazian woman. Dmitry Smyr, chairman of the council of elders of a small Abkhazian town, Novy Afon, and an experienced mediator, said that he has seen cases when women family members are the active avengers in a feud and claim that they had to do the job because the men would not. One man told me that during the July 1989 riots, "The women stood in the front lines in some places. They picked up whatever they could use as weapons--sticks, or anything else. They raised everyone's spirits. Women were sometimes more decisive than men."

It appears that the only women who participated in the early stages of the Assembly were Abkhazians. The Abkhazian organizers made a conscious effort to include their women. The most prominent among the women was Tamara Shakryl who was well received by the North Caucasians. The Abkhazians explained that because of the deeper influence of Islam among many of the North Caucasus peoples women did not play a decision-making role in these societies.

Mediators must have certain qualities. Mediators are sought out who are "distant" from the conflict, either in terms of living outside the neighborhood of the conflicting parties, or having no stake in the outcome. This is seen as ensuring the mediator's objective analysis. A good mediator is regarded as being wise and knowledgeable about traditions; they are influential people and eloquent speakers. In the Assembly the Abkhazians took credit for much of the conflict mediation. They claimed that this was a traditional function that they had always enjoyed historically among these peoples. Lakoba explained how this role developed: "We always lived by the sea, at the crossroads of culture, communication." Gennady Alamiya, an Abkhazian organizer of the Assembly, added: "We have always coexisted with different peoples and different cultures. In the North Caucasus they were always surrounded by other Caucasian peoples, and only relatively recently by Russian Cossacks. But we lived with Greeks, Romans, Russians, Armenians, Georgians, Megrels, Svans. In Dioskuria we had to have thirty interpreters for the different peoples who lived here. Also, never in history did the Abkhazians sell out the Caucasus. Everyone knows that."

We must also remember that Abkhazians always lived far away from these related peoples, so they were seldom involved in the conflicts that developed between close neighbors. This seems to hold true today. An Abkhazian graduate student living in a Moscow dormitory said that graduate students from different North Caucasian groups would come to him often to complain about each other. Each would say that the Abkhazians are like their own people, not whoever the rivals were, and that this is why they trusted my informant and other Abkhazians. North Caucasians had occasion to steal each other's livestock and seize land, but no such conflicts arose with the Abkhazians because they did not share borders with any of these people.

Other members of the Assembly also mediate, depending on the conflict. For instance, the Chechens attempted in the Assembly's first year of existence to mediate between the Abkhazians and Georgians.

The following reflects the typical statements I heard about the desirable qualities of mediators: "He was the ideal mediator because of his personal qualities. Each side knew him to be objective, not a politician. A good mediator is someone who is respected by both sides and is untainted, not hypocritical."

Sincerity was a quality stressed by the Abkhazian organizers of the Assembly. They see this as an all-Caucasus approach rather than purely Abkhazian. Alamiya made these comments about this approach: "I've spent the last year and a half in the North Caucasus more than at home. What have I noticed? The main thing is to be sincere. If you're just even slightly devious, especially with elders, it'll be noticed." For instance, he said it was tempting sometimes to stress that Abkhazians were Muslims, like the peoples of the North Caucasus, in order to win favor with the Assembly members, even though large numbers of Abkhazians are Christians, including the key Abkhazian organizers of the Assembly. Alamiya said that was a recipe for disaster: "We can't play politics in the North Caucasus the way our government officials do. Our relations can only be based on trust."

Shamba echoed this statement: "Our tactic with the North Caucasians is to be absolutely sincere and frank, without any diplomatic tricks that we might use with others to protect our own interests. We resort to such tricks only when they are used against us."

To sum up, good mediators, whether men or women, are known for their objectivity, sincerity, wisdom, unblemished reputation, and distance from the dispute, either geographically or in terms of their involvement. Elders are regarded as the most likely candidates for mediation, because in these cultures such personal qualities are believed to be enhanced by age.

Mediation Procedures

The period that precedes the actual mediation is critical because this is when the parties decide that they are ready to cease hostilities. This decision usually seems to be voluntary and arises when both sides feel they have taken even revenge. In most cases the side that has the highest score against the adversaries is the one that calls in mediators rather than waiting for a severe counter blow. Throughout my conversations about feuds involving deaths it was clear that combatants are motivated to seek a resolution not just to save one's own family, but also out of an awareness of the small numbers of Abkhazians and a concern for the nationality's endangered status. So a sense of self-preservation as a group was found to be a strong motive for conflict management.

Another factor encouraging mediation is the stress involved in long-term animosity. "You can't be in a state of hostility continually," explained one informant. This coincides with the "spontaneous remission" method of conflict resolution whereby "the actors tire themselves out," (Porter and Taplin 1990, p. 23) which leads to withdrawal from the conflict.

Sometimes the decision to mediate a dispute is due to the pressures of public opinion exerted by the future mediators, or perhaps, neighbors, family members, etc. Dmitry Smyr said, "mediators, members of the community, talk to recalcitrant parties one at a time to get their agreement to mediation. A very experienced elder who can speak well cites many cases of conflicts as examples, and various others come into the effort to persuade the antagonists. As mentioned earlier, fear of being outcasts is a strong motivation in such closely knit cultures as the Abkhazian, so such public pressures are quite effective.

This same approach also helps in diplomatic efforts in the Assembly. As Shamba noted: "The point is that all the participants are people of the Caucasus. This means that if someone says he won't listen to someone else's position and threatens to leave, he runs the risk of turning the whole Caucasus against him. From time immemorial this has been a concern to our people, how others look at us, because, after all, we live here together, we share common traditions. So no one will slam the door behind himself. That's why full-scale fighting won't break out between us. We won't let it get to that. Sometimes the situation may become so tense that it is necessary to remind a person that if he leaves us, it's for good."

Caucusing is also relied on in initiating mediation, unlike in China where traditional mediation procedures are similar in many other ways. Wall (1990) conjectures in his study of these practices that the absence of caucusing indicates that the Chinese may be "less inclined (than Westerners) to view people as individuals. Rather they perceive people as members of a group. Therefore the mediator, when encountering a dispute, views the dispute as a group problem (or process) and calls upon the group to mend itself." In Abkhazia, mediators and members of the community talk to the recalcitrant parties one at a time to get their agreement to mediation. As Dmitry Smyr explained, "a very experienced elder who can speak well cites many cases of conflicts as examples, and various other people come into the effort to persuade the antagonists."

The Abkhazians say they went to support Ingush demonstrators against the Ossetians, even though they knew the Ingush had good relations with their adversary, the Georgians. "At official meetings," said Alamiya, "We have to be diplomats and avoid this issue [Ingush-Ossetian conflict--PG], or if it comes up, we try not to take sides. Behind the scenes we do the negotiating." Alamiya would talk to Ossetian writers, one by one. Then he could get them to admit where the Ossetians were wrong, but his efforts had not succeeded in resolving the conflict. However he felt that both the Ingush and Ossetians trusted the Abkhazians as a result of his caucusing, and stressed the difficulties involved in gaining this trust: "It's very hard to be a good person in the Caucasus because you run the risk of always offending someone when you express your opinion. Our main purpose is to get each side to agree to concessions."

When mediators begin the actual mediation procedures, a standard opening, according to one informant who has witnessed many such situations, is as follows: "We've come at the request of society. Have you anything against us?" By this time, the parties are ready for mediation and will answer in the negative, thus confirming their willingness to bow to the authority of the mediators.

The concept of Apsua has traditionally been the most important element of mediation procedures. Apsua means Abkhazian, and so it is this appeal to ethnicity, to Abkhazian values, and to the very existence of the group that forms the main thrust of the mediators' arguments for reconciliation. Mediators commonly say: "Are you an Abkhazian (Apsua )? If so, then you must do this," whatever the mediators suggest. Or mediators may say: "How can you do that to another Abkhazian; there are so few of us as it is?"

This mechanism of conflict resolution clearly serves to preserve the endangered ethnic group, so it works best within a group that shares common values.

The purpose of the Assembly was to forge a sense of all parties being ethnically related, using ancient Caucasian techniques, referring to this common ethnicity as Caucasian ethnicity. The Abkhazians told me how they helped to reinforce this "Caucasian ethnicity" by using the ancient Vainakh tradition of slaughtering a bull to make a whole village related because they all partook of the bull's blood. A whole Chechen village carried out this ritual with its Abkhazian visitors. This committed the village to fight by the side of Abkhazians, and vice versa.

Intermarriage also has been encouraged and even facilitated by the Assembly. Shamba gave this explanation after citing several examples of Abkhazian men or women marrying representatives of the Assembly's groups: "When people have contact with each other, marriages are inevitable. For years we really had no contact with them. When we had our Assembly meeting in Nalchik (Kabardino-Balkaria), one Abkhazian student fell in love with a Kabardian woman. It just works out that way. Emotionally people are prepared for this because they read articles about our contacts, our good relations, how the different people support us." Alamiya added, "It's an interesting phenomenon, because none of these peoples wants their daughters to marry outside the group, but they will now allow marriage with Abkhazians."

Although the appeal to ethnicity is the strongest means of persuasion among a group of people so acutely aware of their fragility, other techniques are used, too, depending on the conflict. One approach is to persuade parties that the conflict is not worth the antagonism. For instance, in Novy Afon, a conflict began when members of two families got in a fist fight after drinking heavily at a party. Within four days, because of growing hostility between the families, all the respected elders in the town gathered together. They contacted the relatives, and appointed a day, time and neutral place to discuss the conflict. Smyr recalled how he initially addressed the two families: "How could you fight over such a matter. Aren't you ashamed? Won't it be ridiculous if the dispute has to be heard in court?" The parties finally agreed, he said: "They shook hands and hugged, and then we held a feast where we met. Some time later one side invited the other side to their home, and treated them like honored guests." A serious conflict, explained Smyr, "is over something important in economic terms, something having to do, for instance, with agriculture."

It is important to the mediation outcome that both sides emerge from the conflict without lost dignity, which is so highly valued in the Abkhazian culture. Thus, face saving measures are part and parcel of the mediation process. Shalva Inal-Ipa, an Abkhazian anthropologist, in the 1950s and 1960s, extensively interviewed long-lived Abkhazians who provided massive oral history on conflict resolution going back to the 19th century. Inal-Ipa maintains that the goal of the mediators was not to establish who was right or wrong in the conflict because that would just exacerbate the circumstances. Instead, mediators emphasized the need for peace. He explained that, "It was felt that the guilty parties had essentially discredited themselves; it wasn't necessary to rub in the guilt."

Other informants expressed varying opinions about whether mediators are supposed to determine the guilty parties in a conflict. Some said that the only way to solve a conflict is to ascertain which side was in the wrong. One man in his fifties stressed, "Of course the mediators have to get to the bottom of the conflict, or it can't be resolved. The mediators' goal is not to smooth over the conflict, but to protect the honor of the victims." Others claimed that this is unimportant. Smyr maintains that "In court it's important to determine who's guilty. But when elders are involved in conflict resolution, they're more interested in keeping the conflict from continuing. We say to the parties: `We don't care who is right and who is wrong, that's past history. What we care about is that you make up, that you let bygones be bygones'."

This approach in interpersonal disputes is made easier in the Abkhazian culture because public expressions of pride in one's own family and children are culturally unacceptable. Therefore it is unusual, for instance, for parents to take the side of their child in a conflict with another family, even if the child is clearly in the right. One informant told me of how, as a 10-year-old, he seriously injured a neighbor boy with a knife during a fight. The father of the victim did not fault the assailant, but his own son. He preferred to assume that his son had provoked the assault, rather than display undignified fatherly pride. This is how close relatives can exert pressure on members of their family to take blame for their wrong-doing in the conflict. Public opinion favors such relatives over those who are more protective, because the former are behaving more within the confines of traditional values.

Caucasian diplomacy (or Abkhazian diplomacy) was a term used frequently to explain the actual style of mediation. Informants had a strong sense that their style was distinctly different in the Caucasus than in other cultures. Often people would tell me that the art of persuasion required mediators "to start from afar," to gradually work their way toward a mutual agreement. Humor was also cited as an important element of this diplomacy. How mediators express themselves, their style of behavior, is as important as what they say. As an informant explained, "It [Caucasian diplomacy--P.G.] can be expressed in a particular gesture, facial expression, reinforced by the right words said at the right time." When I came to this part of my conversations with informants it was hard to learn details because apparently so much of the mediation procedure is spontaneous and subjective. The specifics of the mediators' eloquence was hard to convey.

Abkhazian members of the Assembly told me about one typical example of how tensions were settled between the Ingush and Ossetian representatives in the Assembly. During one of the meetings an Ingush made a statement that prompted the Ossetian delegation to walk out, feeling insulted. It is noteworthy that the Ossetians left the room but not the building because they did not want to break ties with the group, only make a statement of protest. Apparently this fact gave the signal that they wanted a mediator to persuade them to go back into the meeting, without losing face. An Abkhazian official from the town of Gudauta, with a reputation for skillful conciliation techniques, took it upon himself to caucus with the offended delegation. He had already earned a reputation in the Assembly as someone who was well respected among his own people. The Abkhazians described him as a man who "Spoke with great self-confidence, humor, and magnanimously." He focused his conversation on the Narts, legendary heroes of all the North Caucasian peoples, and how that made them all brothers.

The breakthrough was attributed to a joke the mediator had made (that none of my informants had overheard), because when the Ossetians re-entered the meeting room they were smiling and laughing.

This instance also provides an example of how the mechanism of appealing to "ethnicity" can be useful even to different ethnic groups in an alliance, by pointing out that each is a victim of injustice. This makes them an "us." Shamba, on another occasion when caucusing with the Ossetians claimed the following: "I told them that we Abkhazians and Ossetians alike are the victims of injustice, and that's why we must be fair to others." This could have only been done in caucusing, without the Ingush knowing about the statement, and might be an example of how such an approach could undermine the mediator's sincerity.

Once the mediators persuade the antagonists to reconcile, the next step is to finalize the agreement. Usually this is done by an offer of hospitality and, if applicable, material compensation for losses occurred, "the price of blood," as it were. The initiator of the hospitality might say: "I want to get rid of hard feelings and invite you over to say some kind words, apologize, and give gifts."

Acceptance of hospitality has an even more binding effect than a modern contract, signed and sealed in a court of law. Eating someone else's food precludes any future animosity. A solemn ritual oath of reconciliation is sacred and cannot be broken.

Traditionally a feud could be ended either by fosterage (atalychestvo ), the practice of giving up a child to be raised in another family, or by adoption of a child or adult as a means of uniting two families as relatives. In this case the hospitality ritual was combined with bringing the child into its new home. Fosterage and adoption were widespread in the Caucasus throughout the 19th century and in Abkhazia it was practiced at the beginning of the 20th century (Kosven 1961). Even if one side did not agree to adoption as the solution, there was still hope. If a woman from the family which offered the adoption could get access to a child from the reluctant family and put the child to her breast, even symbolically, the relationship was sealed. No more blood could be shed between the two families. If no child was available, another alternative was for a man to find an opportunity to somehow steal into the home of the reluctant family and put his lips to a woman's breast, perhaps the wife or mother of the revenging male. Although the adoption was forced, it was fair and had to be recognized.

According to Inal-Ipa (1956), there were cases, however, when such forced reconciliations were contested. For instance, in the village of Tamysh there was a conflict between Bazala and Kiamach over land. To put an end to the conflict Bazala kidnapped Kiamach's infant son, and adopted him to make the two families relatives. Later Kiamach berated his brother Chincha for not avenging him. Chincha pointed out in defense that Bazala had paid honor to the family by adopting Kiamach's son. "They took my son. What's that got to do with you?" retorted the indignant Kiamach.

Offended, Chincha killed Bazala in a fit of anger. The villagers discussed the matter and decided that Chincha had to be sent away. His parents agreed to the decision, not wanting a son who "mixed milk with blood." Kiamach's son remained in the care of Bazala's family for several years. Chincha died far away from home, a lonely outcast. As an Abkhazian saying goes, "blood can be washed away with mother's milk but blood and milk can never be mixed." Like it or not, Bazala had made himself a relative of Kiamach and Chincha. When Chincha murdered Bazala it was tantamount to murdering his own brother.

No one could remember any cases of adoption for reconciliation since before World War II. But I did hear of cases when after reconciliation, the members of families formerly in conflict, intermarried.

Conclusion

Preparation for mediation is perhaps even more important than the actual process of mediation. This is the stage when the hostile parties are persuaded to seek a peaceful resolution to their dispute or conflict. Caucusing is often the most effective method. This is also the time when the mediator or mediators are accepted by both sides and are entrusted with the authority that empowers them to essentially dictate the terms of the reconciliation.

The strongest arguments used to encourage compromise and reconciliation in both the preparatory stage and the actual process of mediation are appeals to ethnicity, common values, and public opinion. In the case of the Abkhazians the use of culture-specific values are closely linked with the people's acute awareness of their small numbers and endangered culture. In building the alliance of North Caucasian peoples the appeal to ethnicity is broadened and referred to as Caucasian ethnicity.

Clearly, the reconciliation of antagonistic parties in the Caucasus, as evidenced by this study, is impossible unless both sides emerge from the conflict with a sense of dignity. Some mediators may insist on determining who started the conflict, who is more guilty of wrong-doing, and others may avoid doing this at all. In either case the end result must be that both sides can face their neighbors and friends with no sense of lingering guilt. A crucial factor is the style of the mediators, a style that involves good humor and eloquence, and promotes face saving.

Sealing the reconciliation is the final stage. Until World War II the most common way to do this after a serious conflict was to ritually make the hostile parties relatives, either by ritually or actually adopting members of each other's families. Feasting together was another way to ensure that the conflict would never resume. Today this is the most common means, and is more binding than a legal contract in modern Western cultures.

Perhaps more universal values could be substituted to work effectively in conflict resolution within and between other groups outside the Caucasus. Seeking ways to adapt traditional conflict resolution techniques to modern societies is a challenge for future research.

References

Inal-Ipa, Shalva D., 1956. Sotsialnaya sushnost atalychestvo vAbkhazii v XIX veke (Social Essence of the Fosterage System in 19th Century Abkhazia) (Sukhumi: Alashara Publishers).

Kosven, M.O., 1961. Etnografiya I istoriya Kavkaza (Ethnography and History of the Caucasus), Moscow.

Porter, Jack Nusan & Taplin, Ruth, 1987. Conflict and Conflict Resolution . (New York: University Press of America).

Wall, James A. Wall, Jr., 1990. Mediation in the People's Republic of

China. In: Afzalur M. Rahim, ed., Theory and Research in Conflict Management (New York: Praeger).

Having "objectivized" their oppressors, the middle class aspires not to change their fragile systems but make the most out of it, survive within it. Or better still; hope that things will change and that they will ascend to the higher rung of the ruling elite. On the other hand, the ruling elite holds this class in fear and suspicion and is, therefore, always on the look out for a few "radicals" in the middle -- who may stir up the masses -- to co-opt them in the higher class or eliminate them altogether. It is doubtful that these are the people we can rely on to devise and co-ordinate value-driven conflict resolution programs. These are the people who will very likely tell you that globalism is inevitable and modern.

For most struggling peoples the thesis would be a unipolar hegemonic system nourished by fragile nation-states and intent on dominating the "third world" materially, culturally and ideologically through a profit-driven culture of power. Inspired by Steve Biko’ article "Black Consciousness and the Quest for a True Humanity," we would say that the anti-thesis must, therefore, be a humanity-driven, historically minded and culturally sensitive critical solidarity amongst all struggling peoples at the core of whose vision are self-determination, respect for all people and economic empowerment. The synthesis would be just and egalitarian nations with a human face, where cultural domination and power politics have no place.

We want to linger on this point and consider, if briefly, two examples with regard to nonviolence. We want to demonstrate that like current conflict resolution practice, many times noble peace and nonviolent processes do not seem to ask the right questions. Emerging from the encounter of Hindu culture with British oppression, Satyagraha [or Truth Force] as evolved by Mahatma Gandhi proved a potent rallying point for Indian people. Accustomed to dealing with violent subjects, the British occupiers were unable to respond to a peaceful resistance and eventually acceded. India became a nation-state, a fully-fledged member of global hegemony. And, therein lies theirony:

In Mazruian terms, "[t]he prophet of nonviolence, Mahatma Gandhi, helped to facilitate India’s entry into the global structure of power and war." Satyagraha had failed to evolve a sustainable and peaceful post-revolution agenda. It would seem that Gandhi took it for granted that peace and justice for all would prevail within a State system [predicated on violence?]. Mazrui questions, correctly in our view, whether this was not a betrayal of nonviolence. Indeed many other successful revolutions [peaceand unpeaceful] conducted within the parameters of the nation-state have only led people to further misery and subjugation. When the Post-independent State of India was challenged, it used the very same instruments of force -- the very same the British used in suppressing liberation movements in British India -- to suppress genuine democratic peoples movements.

In the Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon provides us with an equally insightful example. He questions the "use" of nonviolence in circumstances that are all-too-familiar to indigenous people – the colonial situation. Our colonial and neo-colonial history is replete with examples of approaches that seek to encourage people to suffer peacefully. Is it a coincidence that conflicts resolution in thirdworld has been vigorously popularized after the end of the "cold war?" Is conflict resolution functioning in the same way as the nonviolence that Fanon talks about? Are conflict resolution practitioners acting as the modern day colonial bourgeoisie which

Mazrui notes that "nonviolence amongst the natives was used as a device to control the natives." Is conflict resolution an attempt to control third world peoples? Are conflict resolution practitioners the modern day missionaries who must prepare ground for the global forces of greed and domination? Two worrying trends: One, because of a rush to mediate and negotiate win-win outcomes, those involved in peoples movements perceive conflict resolution as a threat in the search for justice. For instance, in the Israeli and Palestinian conflict, one group views security as peace while the other views justice as peace. The one with the most power -- read military might -- prevails and the win-win outcome is that security is equated to peace. And since justpeace is not located within the larger democratic perspective,it becomes easier for the more dominant party to create conditions that would enable them to impose peace accords and treaties on the other. World over, we have similar experiences where the oppressors have created conditions for "domination through negotiation." Is it, therefore, surprising is that governments in third and fourth worlds are getting more interested in training their own administrators in conflict resolution and [passive] nonviolence?

The potential that unjust systems would use methods of conflict resolution for subjugation is real. The alliance between the political elites and conflict resolution workers has pushed history further away from the map of justpeace. When the models of conflict resolution ignore history and hardly tackle the root causes of violent conflicts we face, can we expect them to lead us to the land of milk and honey? Let us listen to Tidwell again:

When the lessons of history are ignored how can we respond to the present and the future? For too long we have been chasing butterflies in the name of addressing poverty issues. Never did we heed the warning aptly given by Abdulrahman Babu in 1972:

Nelson Mandela may have completed the picture when he recently told Australians that reconciliation would remain an empty shell if Australian blacks did not have food in their stomachs. We were told that we were poor because we are poor and now we are being told that we experience violent conflict because of our "tribes." Conflict resolution for third and fourth world peoples has bought into play a most fallacious theory: that we are unable to govern ourselves because of our ethnicity [not even ethnicism!]. Having failed to appreciate that tribalism and ethnicism are creations of the ruling elite in fragile nation-states who, in turn, worship the global forces of greed and domination, conflict resolution theory and practice is not particularly concerned that people should build peace from our individuality, culture and experience.

Conflict resolution seems to be taking cue from the global realpolitik particularly with regard to the coinage and promotion of the terms ethnic conflict. Peoples movements and struggles in the cold war era that were referred to, and promoted as, nationalistic movements and freedom struggles have been reduced to "ethnic conflict." This reductionist and self-serving definition of peoples struggles undermines aspirations of peoples for social and political change towards more responsive structures and systems. As well, it reflects the shallow understanding of the dominant knowledge system and worldview that is unable to visit and recognize the historical legitimacy of indigenous peoples and their struggle towards their rightful place in the world. When conflict resolutionists work with this mentality all we an expect is a spiral of conflict.

Again, the politics of conflict resolution operates on the assumption that peace will lead to self-determination - which itself is a misleading contradiction in terms. This short-term, superficial understanding of peace is now responsible for destroying many peoples struggle for justpeace in the so called third and fourth world. One needs to begin realizing that the struggle for peace is embedded within the larger struggle for self-determination and justice. Peace cannot exist in isolation; it can only exist with the realization of self-determination.

It is therefore hardly surprising that conflict resolution has elevated the psychologizing of conflicts almost to the status of a fine art. The tendency to rely and depend heavily on a psychological understanding for analysis in this field could be very misleading. Though psychoanalysis is becoming universal in character, its applicability, relevance as well as its remedy needs to be culturally, sociallyand politically deconstructed for a more holistic process of healing.

In short, conflict resolution is posing the wrong questions and not looking further enough into our past. It is time third world people asked themselves rather seriously whether people who live in squalor, are oppressed by national and global forces, and who are struggling for a little freedom are in urgent need of prejudice reduction workshops, communication skills and peace manuals. There is a chart commonly used in conflict resolutiontraining. Two burros have a pile of hay on each side but they have a rope tied to their necks, connecting them. Each keeps pulling seeking to reach its pile of hay. But then the burros realize that a little dialogue would lead them to enjoy one heap, together. And when they are done with one pile they move to the next heap and also enjoy it, together. Conflict resolved. But our friend Jean Ndayezigiye once posed: What happens when the two burros have finished both haystacks and are hungry again?

Broadly speaking, Conflict Resolution practice fails to appreciate that structures and systems condition human relationship. For instance, if someone is oppressing you a conflict resolution practitioner will not tell you to change the "system" of how you relate or at least, question and transform the structures that make it possible for the person to oppress you – that is too radical, leftist, revolutionary. Rather, you should continue suffering peacefully as you search for the personal transformation of your oppressor. This is also the message we get from the films of Hollywood. Their stories are calculated to "purge" not just our bad tendencies but more importantly, our desire to change society. We relinquish our power to act to the beautiful, sensual, white middle class character. The same message is apparent in conflict resolution: do not change the oppressor, seek to transform the [personal] relationship between you and the oppressor. And, if the oppressor does not change here on earth, do not worry much, an everlasting [re]solution awaits them in hell.

Yet there is a fact that many people do not appreciate, namely that the imperial powers borrowed and continue to borrow ideas on social organization from indigenous peoples. We suggest that the primary tenets of governance in theUSA are borrowed from the indigenous peoples of America. US democracy would have been a good example of a dialogue of civilizations were it not for the fact that American "democracy" is controlled by a clique intent on domination. American democracy has betrayed the tenets of devolution of power borrowed from indigenous traditions. And, there are signs that conflict resolution theory is already borrowing from indigenous ideas. However, the values and structures of capitalist societies potentially prevent the growth of indigenous Peacebuilding values and principals. Problem is when such models are appropriated and processed through the assembly line of the capitalistic experience, then exported back for adaptation in third and fourth world countries.

We nowwant to make some comments regarding training and education with regard to conflict resolution. As we pointed out in the introduction, countless training programs in conflict resolution are now in progress. In other words, the impact of conflict resolution theory and practice is being felt, or has the potential of being felt, right to the grassroots. In our experience, peace "education" is by and large a monologue. When it is claimed that it is dialogical then it is a dialogue of two monologues or the dialogue of the powerful speaking twice. The experiences and reflective capacity of people are taken for granted. In Freirian terms, we now have bank clerk conflict resolution trainers who run around assuming that their elders and those they work for, or represent, are not educated. The enthusiasm with which they dump definitions on unsuspecting people would provide good comedy were it not for the fact that such knowledge affects they way a people define themselves and how they should encounter the world. Whathappened in Information training is being replicated in conflict resolution. And Anthony Smith’s warning is relevant as well:

It is not surprising that current conflict resolution training seems to produce very alienated individuals. Because the training lacks "consciousness of the objective interests of one’s society" the training produces people whom seem removed from the realities they operate from. At best, they begin to define their reality using Western lenses. With time, with such education they become less activist, their analysis is blunted. They perfect the art of transferring the meaning of our suffering through other communication styles.

Let us conclude this section by underlining a cardinal difference between conflict resolution as practiced in the North and South. Now, whereas in the North, conflict resolution is premised on the building of human relationships and tolerance, in the South genuine "conflict resolution" begins with a call to challenge oppressive systems and structures, a demand for natural justice and human rights and respect and freedoms. A charitable view would be that since structures and institutions condition human behavior and social relationships and since these theories emerge from highly capitalistic economies, whose consequence has been accelerated increase in social distance, it isonly natural that a decrease in social distance would be cardinal concern.

For indigenous peoples, relationship building is not an issue. We do not even speak about it; we are born in relationships not just with humans but also with other living and non-living beings. It is one thing we least need to be reminded by any theory, unless it is a red herring or a deliberate effort to regiment us for integration into a greedy global system. Our Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding must, ipso facto, begin with natural justice and human rights. Otherwise, we might experience peace, but it will be hot, very hot peace.

We wish to make the familiar call that we must believe in ourselves. In our view, conflict resolution as packaged and exported by the West to replace the politics of "cold war" with an ideology of "hot peace" where the diversities of rich indigenous peace cultures and indigenousknowledge systems are negated. Globalism provides little or no space for indigenous cultures to make reflective adjustments matching the needs and challenges that emerge from new encounters. "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor," Steve Biko wrote, "is the mind of the oppressed." The power of culture is that it humanizes while the culture of global hegemony dehumanizes through the creation of a manageable, predictable and "oppresseable" culture. Our future begins to disappear when the culture of power makes us believe we are not makers of culture.

Perhaps a good point to start would be to overcome the superstition that technological advancement is equal to modernity. There is need to stop being fatalistic about the seemingly enormous advancement in science and technology. We must accept that modernity is not just about historical time but the quality and character of the lives we lead. And if other indices, besides the economic were to be used to judge whether we are modern or not, then we, the people living in the 21^st century would rank poorly, perhaps worse that our ancestor who lived in caves. Listen to Boal again:

"Conflict Resolution" is at the core of any culture as it involves negotiating our encounter with the world beyond our individuality. Culture demonstrates a people’s collective wisdom, history, traditions, science, and technology, to mention a few. We insist that any attempt to interact with, or change, a people’s core culture ought to be eternally respectful to say the least, for therein lies their power to shape their present and future. And in order to be relevant in the current scheme of things, there is need to make a step back. We need to overcome the fallacies in our written history. We must realize that we can modernize withoutour valuable experiences and cultures being filtered in Western capitals.

The implication of Conflict Resolution is that it has been responsible in systematically destroying indigenous concepts and understanding of Peacebuilding, which are more holistic in nature that is mindful towards issues of culture, justice, nature, history and human development. This erosion of indigenous understanding and concepts of Peacebuilding is primarily due to the inability of the dominant knowledge system and the western notion of education to recognize and respect the indigenous knowledge system. This has stifled genuine dialogue between cultures and between peoples. A starting point might be to search for new paradigms of governance and systems that are more responsive tonature with the inherent capacity to meet the aspirations of peoples.

In this regard, we must do an honest and thorough study of Somalia. What alternatives to social organization does the Somali crisis suggest? We have to examine why and how the Somali currency increased value during the period of no central government and near collapse of the State. How has Somali survived for over a decade without centralized authority? We have a great task to evolve political, economic, social and legal systems that answer to our needs and aspirations, which may even traverse current world economic and political systems and institutions.

The economic and political systems we evolve must be able to respect our differences and talents. From the USA to Rwanda, the nation-state seems to criminalize human differences. What systems and structures would unleash the potential of our creative talents as well as the use of the resources that we have been blessed with in the third and fourth world? We should then create critical linkages and solidarity with people from other third world cultures. Such linkages should help resist the evil forces of capitalistic greed. In so doing we must debunk the myth that the few western Sates are all-powerful. Already there are signs that the oppressed in the West are realizing that they will suffer, if they are not doing so already, the effects of globalism. The need to solidarize against the forces of evil. We should debunk the myth that these forces are so powerful, almost insurmountable. History is replete with examples of great forces collapsing.

There is a dire need to consciously promote the need for critical partnership between the first world and the third world [indigenous and non-indigenous or western and non-western which ever suits]. Genuine dialogue with humility must begin to enhance understanding between the western and indigenous knowledge system. This is inevitable for the collective survival of all humanity. There is an imperative need to realize that our freedom and justice are tied with one another in this interdependent, interconnected and interrelated circle of life.

Then we must be ready to ask the right questions. If we ask the right questions, we shall see the need to address issues of economic poverty apartheid in general and poverty in particular. In any case, the problems of the third and fourth world have already been so incisively analyzed. We need to consciously and critically act in creating a new culture – a culture of justpeace.