Vol. I / No. 3
Perspectives on Dispute Resolution—
Focus
DEC 2011
4
Peacemaking Principles for Day-to-Day Work With Conflicts by Doug Noll
On the Edge
20
My Journey to Inner Peace
Commentary 24 A Holiday Reflection on Religious Acceptance
Cultural Impacts on Peacemaking: Individualist vs. Collectivist Concepts 8
More Than a Name: Strategies For Moving Beyond Disputes About ‘God’ 12
The Healing Power of Reconciliation: Moving Past Divorce 22
Discover
Ban Ki-moon’s Mediation Kick: The New Tool for Global Peacekeeping? 28
PACIS Recieves ACR’s 2011 Peacemaker Award 18
14
Diary of a Peacebuilding Mission: Interview with Timothy Pownall
Featured Contributors Also in this Issue
Doug Noll
Scott Van Soye
Jasper Ozbirn
Anne Sawyer
Kanoe Yim Wheeler
Dina Haddad
ADR in the News 3 Upcoming Events 3 Message from the Editor 3
ADR Times explores mediation, arbitration, negotiation, diplomacy, and peace. ADRTimes.com publishes articles, news and debates,
and provides an industry directory, event calendar, job board, and community space for public and professionals to connect and share insights.
Mikita Weaver Editor-in-Chief
Zachary Ulrich Contributing Editor
Publisher Mark Fotohabadi & W. Timothy Pownall Design / Production Dana Asper, Melaina Rauen The content of this publication is subject to Copyright by ADR Times, Inc. 2011
Message from the Editor
Upcoming Events
ADR Times wishes you a happy Holiday Season!~
- Oakland Labor Law & Labor Arbitration Conference Oakland, CA / Jan 2 2012
2011 has been an exciting year for ADR Times! It has been truly amazing to see so many people engaging in our online dispute resolution community. As 2011 comes to an end, the December issue of ADR Times Perspectives’ Newsletter focuses on Peacemaking.
For most of us, we deal with conflict every day both at a personal and professional level. We also live in a world that is filled with conflict and strife. As we prepare for the new year, I’d like to share a quote. Leo Tolstoy said “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one things of changing himself.” I hope that we all take this time to reflect, rejuvenate and rejoice! I hope that these diverse spread of articles will also inspire you. Whether it is dealing with conflict at the mediation table, conflicts about religion, or conflict in the family, I hope that you can find a way to utilize these conflict resolution techniques to make the world a more peaceful place.
- Circuit Civil Mediation Cert. Training Fort Lauderdale, FL / Jan 13-22 - 30 Hour Basic Mediation Training New York, NY / Jan 23-26 - Los Angeles Labor Law & Labor Arbitration Conference Los Angeles, CA / Jan 26 - Mediating the Litigated Case Los Angeles, CA / Jan 26-Feb 11
View the full Calendar— Submit an Event—
-----------------------------------------------------------Congratulations to Aydin and Victoria, our November 2011 Kindle Fire winners!
-----------------------------------------------------------For more information, please contact: Ms. Mikita Weaver, Editor-in-Chief (800) 616.1202 / editor@adrtimes.com www.ADRTimes.com z
ADR in the News - 12.14 A Bright Future for Arbitration?
- 12.13 Reflections of a Former Middle East Peace Negotiation: From Camp David to Business, Lessons on Negotiation - 12.12 Mediators Intervene in Democratic Republic of Congo Elections - 12.7 Syria Again Ignores Arab League Deadline to Allow Observers - 12.6 Afghanistan – Britain’s Invisible Conflict - 12.5 US: Israel, Palestinians Must Restart Direct Talks
- 11.29 Bahrain Declines U.S. Mediator
View All ADR News— Subscribe to ADR Daily Alerts—
Focus
Peacemaking by Doug Noll
I use the term peacemaking to describe the values and processes involved in transforming difficult and intractable conflicts. Peacemaking encompasses mediation; however, mediation, especially mediation of litigated disputes, does not necessarily include peacemaking. Knowing the difference is useful because it can influence the processes and interventions used by mediators.
Ten principles of peacemaking guide me in my day-to-day work with conflicts
Peacemaking seeks long term, sustainable solutions rather than polite agreements or uneasy and fragile truces to difficult conflicts. Sometimes, settling a case is not enough. Although the law transmutes all conflicts into the exchange of money, that transmutation is sometimes unsatisfactory for people. Thus, recognizing when money is not the only issue is a central aspect of peacemaking. The other challenge in peacemaking is its emotional difficulty. Many times, people
avoid the challenging work of confronting conflict by layering over the problem with a superficial, nice fix. Peacemaking takes on the painful and sometimes frightening aspects of conflict directly.
mediations, we would expect a dialogue between an insured and a victim to provide a deeper, more honest conversation that would help everyone understand the nature of the problem. We would normally not expect agreement, especially when liability is contested. We would expect benefits from sharing stories about what happened and what the effects of the accident have been on everyone involved. Humanizing the people has a value unto itself.
At the international level, we see a general failure of peacemaking because the conflict mediators are either unwilling or unskilled at dealing with deep conflict. In the Kenyan election crisis of 2008-2009, Kofi Anan mediated between Kibaki and Odinga over a disputed presidential election. Peacemaking offers an opportunity to explore and discover These two leaders had been in personal conflict with each that which is as yet unimagined. In many conflicts, the conother for decades. As a result, their respective tribes benefitted when they were in power and suffered when they were not. Rather than take In peacemaking, truth-telling and truth-seeking are the time to look at the deep conflict dynamhonored, integrity is valued, and trust is given because it is ics that these leaders represented, Anan stayed earned. People learn in the peacemaking process to speak from with a superficial political solution. The power sharing arrangement that resulted was so bad their hearts and minds what they have personally experienced. that many predict Kenya will face genocide They are honored for revealing difficult truths when they could during the 2012 elections. This is a direct rebrush over them. sult of the mediator not seeking a sustainable solution. Instead, he looked for the fast, expedient politically safe Band-Aid. Interestingly, he abandoned the mediation process in 6 weeks, turning it flict issues are forbidden subjects to talk about because the over to a university professor who was equally unskilled in anxiety of dealing with them is too uncomfortable. Peacemediation. The entire process was canceled in June 2009 making allows that anxiety to be contained and managed. leaving the underlying structural injustices unresolved. As a result, people sense relief at being able to talk about In peacemaking, truth-telling and truth-seeking are honored, issues that have irked them, sometimes for years. Furtherintegrity is valued, and trust is given because it is earned. more, peacemaking allows new visions and ideas about rePeople learn in the peacemaking process to speak from their lationships to be explored and perhaps created. The process hearts and minds what they have personally experienced. permits discovery of ideas and solutions that before seemed They are honored for revealing difficult truths when they unimaginable. I am always amazed by lawyers who do not could brush over them. The peacemaker instills this value in let their clients tell their stories in mediation conferences. the process and insists on a commitment to truth telling from The lawyers are so focused on collecting money for their clients that they lose sight of the fact that they are servants, everyone participating in the process. not masters. This is sometimes antithetical to the typical lawsuit mediation, where truth goes out the window as everyone tries to Mediation is often the only time a party is allowed to speak game the mediator. Sometimes, the gaming works; some- without interruption. The procedural justice research tells us times, it hurts the parties because their needs for validation, that people experience justice when they have been heard by vindication, and to be heard are ignored by the lawyers. One a trusted authority figure. The outcome is not nearly as imof the unintended consequences of the mediation of litigated portant as the process. Many lawyers have a different view disputes is that the process becomes all about the money and of this, believing that outcome is everything. And, it is imother valuable aspects of the process are abandoned. My col- portant. However, if peacemaking is one of the goals, allowleague Ken Jaray is talking with high level insurance compa- ing parties to have their voice is critical. ny executives to see if they would agree to a more humane, Peacemaking techniques are creative, exploratory, and filled peaceable mediation process. In that process, which I have with the risk, fear, and excitement of discovery. Jeff Krivis called restorative mediation, the people affected by the ac- likes to tell a story where he intentionally stepped into a cident would talk to each other. Only after they have spoken waste basket and tripped. The humor of the moment lightwith each other would the process turn to a negotiation over ened the room. Jeff also talks about mediation as improvia monetary settlement. As we have seen in victim-offender sation. Being a jazz violinist, I know exactly what Jeff is
“
”
December 2011 | 5
talking about. When you improvise, whether in comedy or music, you never know what is going to happen. The excitement of improvisation is the anxiety of unknowing and the discovery of the new.
safe from personal attack. Overcoming the cynicism is challenging, but that does not mean that I give up on people.
The peacemaker is charged with the sacred duty of creating a refuge where people from different backgrounds know they will be heard and understood, where their needs and ideas will be respected, and where they can safely do the difficult work of reconPeacemaking requires tremendous courage by those faced ciling their differences. This is a primary value differwith difficult conflict. Conflict causes people to fear others as well as themselves. What ence between peacemaking people detest in others is what is inside of them. Thus, to confront others is to confront and other forms of conflict the same thing within. People know this intuitively, but cannot articulate it. resolution. The peacemaker takes on the obligation of protecting everyone, seeing that all are given equally high respect and dignity, that Like improvisation, peacemaking is a fearful undertaking all may fully express themselves or not as they wish, all in because no one, not even the peacemaker, knows where peo- a place where there will be no personal attacks, insults, or ple will end up. Once the process is underway, however, the other emotional or physical violence of any sort. fear generated from the anxiety is transformed into the fear The peacemaker must create a place where people are able of discovery, which creates a certain excitement in people. to approach, rather than freeze, flee, or fight. Peacemakers, It’s just like playing jazz violin. I think Jeff would say the knowledgeable in the neuropsychology of fear, always recsame about comedy improv. ognize the importance of the environment on preconscious
“
”
Peacemaking is a refuge--a safe haven from the incivility and outright nastiness of conflict. Conflict can be nasty and brutal. Very few people enjoy the emotions invoked by conflict situations. Peacemaking processes create an environment of safety and security where the conflict issues can be dealt with carefully and respectfully. In mediations around litigated disputes, I am struck by the level of incivility between counsel and between counsel and opposing parties. I do my best to de-escalate the incivility. At least for one day, people ought to be in a process where they are emotionally
Doug Noll
brain processes. Peacemakers are therefore charged with the duty of controlling environments that allow people to approach one another, rather than to defend against one another.
Peacemaking seeks to disenfranchise, or confront in a process of controlled escalation, those who seek unfair advantage, who exploit racial or class or gender differences, and who prefer to maintain disparities that favor themselves. Justice is a core value of peacemaking. Resolution without
Douglas E. Noll is a lawyer turned peacemaker, professional mediator, and author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books, 2011).He can be reached at doug@nollassociates.com. WEBSITE: www.elusivepeace.com Read more articles by Doug Noll at: www.adrtimes.com/articles/author/dougnoll
6 | ADR Times Perspectives
justice does not resolve conflict; it is simply a demonstration of which party holds greater power. A peacemaker’s values and integrity may require that the process be shut down. Some conflicts are such that they must be escalated before peacemaking will be possible. The peacemaker recognizes this and therefore does not sacrifice justice for expediency. On the other hand, a peacemaker is not a judge. Maintaining non-judgment and non-reactivity is important. So one of the great challenges of peacemaking is balancing non-judgment against the cry for justice; non-reactivity against obvious unfairness or wrong-doing. This is why peacemaking is some of the most difficult work a human being can be called to do. It is relatively easy to opine about who is right or wrong or to be a carrier of offers and counter offers into different rooms. It is much more difficult to remain balanced in the face of heinous acts, and to help people work out their differences.
Peacemaking involves risks, not the least of which is failure. No guarantees can ever be made that peace will be restored between parties. Every conflict contains the seeds of further escalation that may take root despite the best efforts of everyone. However, the risk of failure is never a deterrent to the attempt at peace, especially when peace seems hopeless. The tension against this value is knowing that lawyers rate mediators on how effectively the mediators settle cases. Satisfying the true client, the referring lawyer, is important. Thus, professional mediators who primarily work with litigated disputes have a distinct self-interest in not failing. A bad settlement is better than no settlement. However, when this tension becomes out of balance, mediation can be a miserable experience for everyone.
Peacemaking requires tremendous courage by those faced with difficult conflict. Conflict causes people to fear others as well as themselves. What people detest in others is what is inside of them. Thus, to confront others is to confront the same thing within. People know this intuitively, but cannot articulate it. This fear is why so many people avoid peacemaking—they do not have the courage to face themselves, their secret inadequacies, and their deepest fears.
I am criticized by some segments of the bar for being a lawyer turned peacemaker. Lawyers sniff at my work, saying that peacemaking is for sissies or words to that effect. They seek mediators who, like them, will knock heads, and see mediation as a competition to be won or lost. Being a second-degree black belt and former trial lawyer, I can do that too. However, I choose, when I can, to take the more difficult road. When done correctly, peacemaking is not easy nor is it soft; it is some of the most satisfying work a human being can ever experience. Those moments when reconciliation occurs are transcendent and are what cause me to work even harder in the next conflict for the people who choose me as their peacemaker. z
Cultural Impacts on Peacemaking
Individualist vs. Collectivist Concepts by Scott C. Van Soye “Blessed are the peacemakers.” We value peacemakers. We may even aspire to be among them. But often we have no firm conception of what it means to “make peace.” Does it mean to cause the cessation of conflict, by whatever means? Or does it refer only to non-violent efforts to mediate disputes, or to bring non-military pressures to bear? And what does it mean to succeed? Is it enough that the conflict stops? Or is it necessary to repair the damage done? As it turns out, what we think of as the “right” answers to these questions depends in part on our cultural assumptions regarding the basic role of the individual in society – the distinction between an individualistic society and a collectivist one. These differing approaches have implications in both large and small disputes.
An Individualist Culture—
Individualistic (usually Western) societies value personal responsibility, personal freedom, and self-determination. “Looking out for number one” is a core lesson in such cultures, and defining a conflict or its solution is up to those involved. In such cultures dispute resolution, including negotiation or mediation, is a face to face process driven by individual needs and desires. It is often confidential, so as to protect “personal privacy,” and litigation is simply another step in defending one’s individual rights.[1] The usual focus in individualistic societies is on “resolving the problem.” – a narrow inquiry into how the immediate conflict can be ended with some immediate benefit to one or more of those involved.
“coercive peace” or “peace enforcement” refers to forcing belligerents to stop fighting by the application or threat of superior force.[3] It is familiar, because of the recent deployment of almost 6,000 UN soldiers in newly sovereign South Sudan in July of 2011, and because of the recent actions of the United States and other nations in support of the Libyan opposition. There are historical examples, too -- in Kosovo, or even 60 years past, on the Korean Peninsula.
The Collectivist Culture—
The counterpart to the individualistic culture is the collectivist one, predominant in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The individual in this culture is considered secondary to the group, which gives its members their Often, Those from individualistic cultures typically use ag- identity. Inter-group relationships are close. [4] gressive problem-solving tactics.[2] In the international group members share spiritual beliefs as well. peacemaking context, this can lead to the paradoxical Collectivist peacemaking styles are markedly different result of waging war to make peace. The concept of from individualistic ones. A typical example is Japan.
8 | ADR Times Perspectives
There, disputes are usually resolved without litigation. Rather than being face-to-face, negotiations usually takes place between intermediaries. When disagreements do land in court, the trial judge will try to settle them throughout the process, rather than resorting to adjudication.[5] Going to trial is considered a failure.[6]
Active and supportive involvement of community members in helping to resolve disputes is common in collective society. In addition to this active support, community pressure and shaming are used to enforce compliance with norms.[9] Such group pressure to conform is very powerful in collective societies because one’s identity is based not on the Western idea of “I,” but on membership in the group. For an indiThe Navajo Culture as a Case Study vidualist, what determines Traditional Navajo culture is also a collectivist culture. self-image is internal. For According to the tribal court website, Navajo peacea collectivist, what others making practices go back to the beginning of time, and think is most important. are part of the tribe’s creation story.[7] Peacemaking focuses not on punishment and blame, but on restoration Although some non-Naof harmony, balance and “right” behavior in the com- vajo have tried to adopt restorative justice aspects of munity. As pointed out by Judge Robert Yazzie, for- Navajo peacemaking, part of its success depends on mer Chief Justice of the Navajo Nation, the paramount shared spiritual values, which makes the transfer to [10] The Peacemaker is value is good relations between community members: non-Navajo systems difficult. often a spiritual leader, reminding participants of their “A great deal of American law is based on corrective shared values and calling them to account. Prayer is justice--using punishment to control (or attempt to conpart of the session and is recognized as such. trol) bad behavior. Navajo law, in contrast, is concerned with good relationships. A dispute in Navajo thinking is One central Navajo idea is hozho. Though it lacks an a situation where people are not in good relations with exact English counterpart, it has often been translated each other. Obviously, this is what causes disputes in “harmony.” More broadly, it is a state of balance, peace, the first place. Navajo justice methods utilize relation- blessing, bounty and wholeness in which all is right with ships, talking things out, teaching, and consensus to ad- the world because proper rules are being followed: “Hozho reflects the intellectual concept of order, the emojust the interaction of parties.”[8] tional state of happiness, the moral notions of good and Chief Justice Yazzie notes that straightforward reparafairness, the biological condition of health and well-betions are not awarded in peacemaking. Instead of foing, and the artistic characteristics of balance, harmony, cusing on what was lost, the goal is to provide what is and beauty.” [11] Restoring hozho to the parties and their needed to make the claimant happy. community is the primary goal of the Peacemaker.
Focus
Scott Van Soye
Scott Van Soye is a full-time mediator and arbitrator working with the Agency for Dispute Resolution with offices in Irvine, Beverly Hills and nationwide. He is a member of the California Bar, and practiced real estate, civil rights, and employment law for over twenty years. He holds an LL.M. in Dispute Resolution from Pepperdine University, where he is an adjunct professor of law. He welcomes your inquiries, and can be reached at scott.vansoye@agencydr.com or (800) 616-1202, Ext. 721. Website: www.scottvansoye.agencydr.com Read more articles by Scott Van Soye at: www.adrtimes.com/articles/author/scottvansoye
December 2011 | 9
Making Peace in a Diverse World—
It is fascinating that two of the three collectivist concepts discussed above (without any conscious choice In his book “Making Peace in the Global Village,” Pro- by the author) have no precise translation in English. fessor Robert McAfee Brown describes the collectiv- And the English translation of “shalom” as “peace” ist Hebrew concept of shalom in a way that is similar hardly captures the all-encompassing welfare described to hozho in its breadth and its idea that all is in order. by Professor Brown. It is as if individualists don’t – or This word, translated simply “peace,” means whole- can’t – understand the collectivist worldview. ness, health, security, prosperity, physical and political All of this has serious implications for peacemakers, well-being. Shalom also refers to God’s covenant with whether they are mediators involved in small-scale disthe Hebrew people, and the blessings that flow from it. putes or diplomats aiming to resolve ancient rifts. The Like hozho, shalom has a spiritual component. contrasts suggest an early inquiry into several areas: The concept of Ubuntu, used in collectivist African cultures, translates roughly “I am who I am because of others.” Members of a community are intertwined. This concept of universal linkage means that we should share what we have, be compassionate, friendly, caring and hospitable. A wrong done to one member affects all members, including the wrongdoers. Resolution takes place before the members of community, any of whom can question disputants, or make suggestions. Forgiveness and reconciliation are vital, so that the disputants can retake their place in the community, and the group as a whole can heal. Archbishop Desmond Tutu promoted the idea of Ubuntu as a way to call for forgiveness and begin healing the deep wounds of apartheid.[12]
What does success look like to each of the disputants? Is the goal merely the cessation of the dispute, by any means? Is it reparation for what was lost? Is it what disputants need “to be happy?” Or is it restoration of relationships, communal harmony, and spiritual balance? Differing goals may mean conflict and confusion within the process. The peacemaker certainly needs to be aware of them from the outset.
Who are the appropriate parties? To an individualist, only those directly injured by the dispute need to be present. To the collectivist, the group has been injured, and also is expected to contribute to support during the conflict, and advice about settlement. This may mean that family members, friends, neighbors and community
Factor Mediation & Arbitration Services, Inc.
MAXimize your options! www.factoradr.com
10 | ADR Times Perspectives
leaders become part of the process. In a collective culture with a strong spiritual component, a religious leader may be an appropriate participant. All may be expected to consent. The presence of “outsiders,” and the delays associated with communal decision-making could shock and dismay individualistic parties. Who gets to hear about the results? As noted above, individualists like to keep “their business” private. The concept is alien to collectivists, who see themselves as interconnected parts of a whole community. Too much emphasis on confidentiality could cause anger and suspicion.
What process is used? Because collectivists place so much emphasis on relationships, the resolution process most comfortable for them is a “conversation,” or “talking out,” exemplified by the Navajo peacemaking process. Everyone is at the table, and whoever might help is invited to contribute. In the mediation context, this corresponds with a more facilitative, no-caucus style. Individualists may be more at ease with a traditional Western, confidential caucus model. The cultural differences discussed could cause friction during the peacemaking process. They should be dealt with as early as possible, preferably during the convening stage.
This article isn’t intended to provide all the answers – clearly other issues will arise as a result of the clash between individualist and collectivist views. But perhaps exposure to these concepts will give food for thought to those practicing peace, about what it means, and how to achieve it. z ENDNOTES [1] Pedersen, P. B. , The Cultural Context of Peacemaking IN PEACE, CONFLICT, AND VIOLENCE: PEACE PSYCHOLOGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (Eds. Christie, D. J., Wagner, R. V., & Winter, D. A., 2001). [2] Guss, C. D., Decision Making in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures IN ONLINE READINGS IN PSYCHOLOGY AND CULTURE (2004). [3] Miall, Ramsbotham, and Woodhouse, Contemporary Conflict Resolution, 25 (available at www.jmu.edu/commstudies/.../wm_library/Hooley_Schmucker.doc). [4] Pedersen, supra note 1, at 3-4. [5] Sato, Y., COMMERCIAL DISPUTE PROCESSING AND JAPAN (2002) 283-286. [6] Pedersen, supra note 1, at 5. [7] Peacemaking, http://www.navajocourts.org/indexpeacemaking.html. [8] Hozho Nahasdli, We are now in Good Relations: Navajo Restorative Justice, 9 ST. THOMAS LAW REVIEW 117, 123 (1996). [9] Goldberg, Carol E., Overextended Borrowing: Tribal Peacemaking Applied in Non-Indian Disputes, 72 WASH. L. REV. 1003, 1015 (1997). [10] Id. at 1007-11. [11] Brewer, J.K., Indigenous Origins of Inalienable Rights: Natural Law Theory in Navajo Culture, 8 LOYOLA J PUB. INT. L. 37, 43. [12] Murithi, T., Practical Peacemaking Wisdom from Africa: Reflections on Ubuntu, 1 THE JOURNAL OF PAN AFRICAN STUDIES 4, 28-30 (2006).
More Than A Name
Strategies for Moving Beyond Disputes About “God” by Jasper Ozbirn
Religion is, and according to recorded history always has been, a major source of conflict between groups of peoples. This article addresses what the writer perceives to be a pervasive root of conflict at the basic level between believers— “who has the “right” God?” As found by a recent BBC Poll, over 60% of the world population holds “ethnocentric religious beliefs” in that they believe their religion or God is the only true religion or God.
To begin, it should be recognized that most religions, or at least most religious texts, provide evidence of a preference for compromise to resolve conflict. The goal in religious conflict resolution then, as stated by one academic article, “is to facilitate a change from the participants’ narrow, exclusionist, antagonistic, or prejudiced attitudes and perspectives to a more tolerant and open minded attitude.” Mohammed Abu-Nimer, 38 J. PEACE RESEARCH 685, 686 (Nov. 2001). This article provides a broad overview of how getting past the “belief” to the relationship between the believer and the belief may bring diverse religious perspectives to some consensus.
Three Strategies 1. Humanize the Other Side
2. Move to Recognize Individual Figure 1 presents a diagram of a basic fundamental Relationships with “God”
religious conflict. In this scenario, each party is trying to convince the other that their God is the “true” God. Each party is therefore inclined to strive to explain their “truth” to the other side—they are trying to get the other to make a connection with their God, as represented by the dashed lines. For some believers, this connection may not be possible or even desirable, and trying to force the issue may alienate the peacemaker in their eyes. It may nevertheless be possible to get each party to understand that the other has a “relationship” with his or her own God, and that the other’s relationship is valid to them. Essentially, the goal is to humanize each side in the other’s eyes. William Thomas concludes in his research on fundamentalism that fundamentalist groups tend to demonize “others” including anyone that is not of their religious group. Gurus and Guerrillas: Religious Fundamentalism and Dispute Resolution, 4 HARV. NEG. L. REV. 115 (1999). Humanization of the other side is a vital step toward overcoming this fundamentalist position and moving toward reconciliation.
It is this writer’s belief that many religious conflicts arise from a lack of understanding of another’s relationship to God. For parties with a strong personal sense of their relationship with God, exploring the similarities between each individuals’ relationship to God may help them to identify with one another. This approach is presented in Figure 2, where the goal changes from attempting to convince the other side that one’s God is “the true God” to recognizing that another’s relationship with his or her God is legitimate and similar in nature to one’s own relationship to his or her God. This takes the idea of humanization one step further and embraces the possibility that the lives of these two believers, while couched on different terms and outward expressions of faith, are similar in the way they relate to the divine. As a subset of this idea, focus may be directed to one’s relationship to sacred texts instead of their relationship to God. Even at the literal level, it is possible that individuals of different religions have similar relationships with their sacred texts. As an example, one
3. Move to Recognize Relationship Between “Gods”
might say, “I am Christian because it is the way, the truth, and the life. I find application of the principles in the Bible to be a guiding light in my life.” Further exploration may reveal that this person means that Christianity defines their morality. Once this connection is made, it may be possible to show them that what they have described is essentially identical to what the “other” person describes receiving from their relationship with their religious doctrines, albeit in different terms. While this discussion is not likely to lead to a consensus on who has the right God or the right Book, the two sides may take a first step toward respecting the other by acknowledging that the other side’s religion provides them a viewpoint that is similar on many levels. Similarly, the focus may be moved from relationship between party and God to relationship between party and church, synagogue, or mosque to find similarity. This might be most useful for a party that appeals strongly to church doctrine for their belief system. Thus, a peacemaker may bring parties together by illustrating similarities of their respective “houses of worship.”
Of course, not all adherents of a religion have the same beliefs as all others of that religion. Rather, individuals vary tremendously in their interpretation and application of their own religion. In the proper context (i.e. with parties that are willing and well prepared), a discussion of God as universal (illustrated in Figure 3) may bring the parties together. However, this may be more than many are willing to consider, and presenting it could harm the peacebuilder’s credibility if presented to the wrong parties or at the wrong time or in the wrong way.
Focus
In conclusion, consensus between religions, or at least between religious individuals, is almost always possible at some level. Through enhanced understandings of other religions, all people of faith may deepen their own spiritual journey. z
Jasper L. Ozbirn received a LL.M. in Dispute Resolution with an Emphasis in Mediation from the Straus Institute, Pepperdine University School of Law. He is presently an associate attorney with Citron & Citron in Santa Monica, California. Jasper Ozbirn
Read more articles by Jasper Ozbirn at: www.adrtimes.com/articles/author/jasperozbirn
December 2011 | 13
DISCOVER
Diary of a peacebuilding Mission by Anne Sawyer
Peacebuilding is strategic, elusive, complex, and predicated on hope – hope that a collaborative pursuit of common interests will afford a better future for our children. This is nowhere more evident than in the emerging work of faith-based diplomacy. Track two diplomacy is proving to be the sophisticated, cutting-edge, 21st century transactional diplomatic process among state and non-state actors that effectively creates opportunities for progress in the world’s identity-based conflicts. Faith-based diplomacy is the most promising manifestation in this developing field as it moves beyond win-lose paradigms of the Westphalian past, reanimating ancient principles of Abrahamic faith-based reconciliation. Yes, religion factors significantly in this mix! The singularly most exciting and successful proponent of this approach is the PACIS PROJECT in Faith-Based Diplomacy, winner of this year’s PEACEMAKER AWARD bestowed by the national Association for Conflict Resolution for significant and sustained contribution by an organization to the cause of peace. A joint effort by the number one ranked ADR program among US law schools, the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution of the Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and the leading Washington, D.C. based field-savvy “do-tank”, the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, the PACIS PROJECT in Faith-Based Diplomacy, in consultation with governments, religious leaders, and popular movements, addresses intractable identitybased conflicts that exceed the grasp of traditional diplomacy and legal remedy. PACIS intentionally and effectively combines the transcendent power of religion with the practice of international diplomacy through an innovative model of faith-based reconciliation that has borne tangible fruit in the United States, Sudan,
14 | ADR Times Perspectives
Kashmir, east central Europe, and of late, in the Arab and Israeli spheres of influence.
The PACIS PROJECT emphasizes “on the ground” intervention among polarized communities in situations of identity-based conflict. It seeks to work with leaders and emerging leaders in policymaking circles, foreign ministries, national security agencies, religious denominational communities, higher education, and humanitarian non-governmental organizations who must grapple with the complex role of religion in societies and faith as a contributing factor in violent conflict. Religious worldviews, when used by extremists to promote violent conflict, threaten world peace. The PACIS PROJECT focuses on the development of this specialized field within track two diplomacy and is able to work in collaborative fashion with official track one government-to-government diplomacy. In his book, “Religion: The Missing Dimension of Statecraft, Dr. Douglas Johnston, President of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy
Peacebuilding meeting with Grand Mufti of Syria
writes: “Almost anywhere one turns, one finds a religious dimension to the hostilities.” The PACIS PROJECT seeks to bring together the principles and practices of religion with politics in the cause of peacemaking and conflict resolution. W. Timothy Pownall, Assistant Director of the Straus Institute, who shares PACIS PROJECT co-director duties with the Reverend Canon F. Brian Cox and Mr. Michael E. Zacharia suggests “We have allowed our religions to become politicized and our scriptures to be weaponized and this makes enemies of us all.” This unique and pioneering work of the heart is sometimes messy and surprising. Pownall says:
“Our effort is propelled by the notion that until a shared value system is socialized across combatant societies, peace treaties remain pieces of paper. Abrahamic faithbased reconciliation is that new and ancient construct calling to us through our respective sacred texts to love God and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. To that end, where possible and when invited, we bring together disparate parties into an innovative
facilitated process to create a mini-crisis of conscience, a facing inward, and then a facing outward, in a kind of controlled sacred space dynamic where participants are led through a consideration of core faith principles such as ‘the other,’ justice, forgiveness, healing relationships, peacemaking and the sovereignty of God. As you would imagine, emerging from this process stereotypes are dismantled, new understanding and relationships are forged and a fearlessness in addressing heretofore ‘dangerous’ topics becomes an exercise in friendship formation. It’s quite moving and deeply humbling to witness and experience participants and facilitators alike recognize they are experiencing the transcendent”
In forming these new relationships, trust and understanding ensues and “participants find themselves comfortable holding one another accountable to the highest and best of their respective faiths” says Pownall. ** General information appearing in this article on the PACIS Project is also available at the Pepperdine PACIS project website.
December 2011 | 15
As the PACIS PROJECT emphasizes “on the ground” intervention among polarized communities in situations of identity-based conflict, its latest diplomatic mission this past November to Beirut, Amman, Cairo, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Tel Aviv highlighted again PACIS’ ability to connect with significant state and non-state influencers.
PACIS is overseen by Timothy Pownall, the Assistant Director of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University and Principal at The AGENCY FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION; Brian Cox, International Center for Religion and Diplomacy Senior Vice President; and Michael Zacharia, a veteran of the White House, U.S. State Department, and international corporate law.
Clearly Timothy Pownall, Brian Cox, and Michael Zacharia bring an amazing wealth of experience in faith-based diplomacy including history, politics, conflict management, theology, personal faith, and social/political/religious movements among the Muslim, Jewish, and Christian populations of the region. This particular mission was no different. Each team member realized that they were undertaking an initiative that had no clear precedent in history. “There is no manual except the example of Abraham who took one step in faith at a time in answer to the promptings of his God”, suggests Cox.
Anne Sawyer
I recently had the wonderful opportunity to speak with Tim Pownall about this latest mission to find out how these trips unfold and where they think they are making a difference. We also had a chance to discuss the significant momentum the PACIS PROJECT is gaining across the Middle East. Here are some highlights of our conversation: Q. Where can people find out more about your work? Does PACIS have a website?
“Yes, of course! People can read about our many diplomatic missions at www.law.pepperdine.edu/ straus/academics/pacis. The website presents the eight core values addressed in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam and includes information about Abrahamic faith-based reconciliation as a moral vision.” Q. What is your main purpose or message when you hit the ground on these missions?
“Our approach is to form and maintain and connect those strategic relationships we have established in order to socialize the notion of faith-based reconciliation through our diplomatic processes across the region. Our process heals relationships!” Q. How do you bridge the gap between the various faiths?
“In conversation, we acknowledge that for all of us our faith is deeply heart-felt – we believe what
Anne Sawyer is a Senior Case Manager with Agency for Dispute Resolution. Having worked for a range of industries from Fortune 500 companies to solo practitioners, Anne has over twenty years of paralegal and administrative experience in the legal field. Prior to her position with Agency for Dispute Resolution, she was the Law Firm Administrator and Senior Paralegal for Sawyer & Sawyer in Cypress, California. She also previously worked at Paul Hastings Janofsky Walker and Hilton Hotels Corporation as a senior paralegal and project manager. Anne has an affinity for details and intensive research while also maintaining focus on the “big picture.” She understands the strict requirements of the legal progress but also honors the integrity of the human experience. Anne lives in Huntington Beach with her family, and she is an avid traveler, music enthusiast, and volunteer at Precious Life Shelter. Website— Read these and other articles by Anne Sawyer at: www.adrtimes.com/articles/author/annesawyer
16 | ADR Times Perspectives
we believe – and we come to it through various experiences. We care in good faith to continue to grow in our faith and better understand its demands of us in our political and social/civic lives. This we share in common. From this place we begin to explore and learn together about bridging our differences, respecting those differences, and living with those differences according to the divine voice in our respective sacred texts. As its core intellectual and methodological framework, The PACIS PROJECT is an innovative approach to diplomacy and peacemaking that has been developed over the past twenty years by Brian Cox. This innovative approach is called faith-based reconciliation which is defined by eight core values and by a deliberative process that focuses on creating a reconciling spirit between antagonists and engaging in constructive joint problem solving as a means of not only resolving the conflict but of also addressing the need for a wider process of sociopolitical healing so as to develop a sustainable environment for peace.”
conduct our faith-based reconciliation events, we employ the services of knowledgeable interpreters.”
Q. How do you approach someone from the Muslim Brotherhood and get that person engaged in a conversation as a person of faith when by all accounts you can be perceived as their enemy?
Q. What was the biggest surprise during this recent trip?
“It is clearly understood that we have starkly divergent political and religious beliefs and are viewed, in fact, with great skepticism initially by a variety of groups we interact with. We engage senior and middle level religious leaders from both Israel and the Arab nations in the Middle East from groups and movements who typically resist constructive problem solving and tend to undermine the peace process. Since the faith-based reconciliation methodology focuses on ‘changing hearts’ as a prelude to joint problem solving, it was suggested that such a process is better suited to reaching such groups because our approach goes to where their hearts are and engages with them there as a matter of first priority. Q. Do you find that some feelings get “lost in translation” at times?
“Yes, of course! Neither Brian, Michael, nor myself speak Arabic or Hebrew – and yet the ‘heart’ is an amazing communicator of intent and motive. Fortunately, we don’t miss too much. All three of us are highly experienced mediators, listeners, and internationalists so cross-cultural communication and understanding comes relatively easily. When we
Q. What do you think is the most important question that can be asked during these conversations?
“I ask, ‘What do you believe? I know about your religion—tell me about your faith. What do you believe?’ Then we ask the obvious follow-up, ‘Would you help me understand why that is so important to you?’ It is important to understand we don’t throw out that question in the first two minutes of meeting someone. There is a process of formal/informal diplomatic protocol and social etiquette that is inevitably observed. Only at the appropriate time and in the most culturally sensitive manner will we eventually get to that question.”
Discover
“The serendipity in our most recent trip happened while we were working in Cairo. We were approached ‘out of the blue’ by senior members to the Syrian National Council in exile to enter into conversation with them about the possibility of consulting with the National Council concerning matters of consensus building and peacebuilding.” Q. Are you seeing major shifts in the Middle East?
“Yes, there is something very big happening throughout the region – popular movements and indigenous political activism informed by what we would call democratic ideals of freedom and selfdetermination are rumbling and roiling about the so-called holy lands and North Africa. It’s a time of danger and great opportunity. My hope is that as the interests at play jockey for position, that the PACIS PROJECT’s innovative model of faithbased reconciliation (a religious framework for peacemaking that has been seriously ‘road-tested’ and has borne tangible fruit in other intractable identitybased conflicts) will be taken seriously to heart and appropriated by emerging popular movements as a deeply impactful and highly effective diplomatic engagement process alternative!” z
Association for Conflict Resolution
2011 Peacemaker Award Tim Pownall on behalf of the PACIS project in faithbased diplomacy accepted the 2011 Peacemaker Award given each year by the Association for Conflict Resolution. The Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR) is an organization committed to awareness of conflict resolution in the public. ACR’s vision is that “All people know their choices for conflict resolution.”
As part of its mission to empower individuals by giving them choices for quality conflict resolution, each year the ACR presents the Peacemaker Award to recognize an individual or organization’s significant and sustained contribution to the cause of peace. Since 2001, this award has recognized efforts to help resolve ethnic, religious, or civil conflicts around the globe by the effective employment of various conflict resolution approaches. In presenting this award each year, ACR notes that the purpose of conflict resolution is to “bring peace to troubled relationships, whether domestic, organizational, environmental, or international.” ACR presented the Peacemaker
18 | ADR Times Perspectives
Award to Tim Pownall and the PACIS Project in FaithBased Diplomacy of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution of Pepperdine University in recognition of its effort to resolve troubled relationships in the Middle East. Tim Pownall is founding director of the PACIS project with Rev. Brian Cox of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy and Michael Zacharia. On a recent trip to the Middle East with the PACIS project, Tim Pownall met with the Secretary General of the Muslim Brotherhood. When asked why someone from the West wanted to meet with a leader from the Muslim Brotherhood, Pownall responded, “Politics has made enemies of us. Yet my faith says that I am supposed to love you. And I can’t love you without knowing you.’” In employing faith-based diplomacy, the PACIS project seeks to use faith as a portal and a vehicle towards a deeper conversation. By examining sacred texts, one’s peace tradition is often remarkably similar to the peace tradition of one’s enemy.
Only through recognizing that all are created equal in the eyes of God can both sides begin to employ practical problem solving. True transformation does not begin with pieces of paper embodying a peace agreement between government official. Tim Pownall notes, “People are not prepared to live together in peace because the idea of faithbased diplomacy and faith-based Abrahamic reconciliation has not been socialized in their respective societies.” The PACIS project with its strategic partners initiates and facilitates this conversation to begin to create lasting peace. z Watch Tim Pownall’s acceptance speech online— Learn more about ACR’s Peacemaker Award online—
The PACIS PROJECT
in Faith Based Diplomacy The PACIS team, drawn from the fields of religion, politics, law, national security, business, and academia analyze, plan, and implement faith-based methodologies that draw on the wellsprings of the various faith traditions.
2 • To empower indigenous senior, civil society, and grassroots leaders with a faith-based approach to peacemaking that seeks to “soften hearts” as a prelude to constructive, joint problem solving.
1 • To promote the Abrahamic values of faith-based reconciliation as a paradigm for 21st century societies, as an alternative to religious extremism and militancy, as a means of healing the broken family of Abraham (Jews, Christians and Muslims), and as a methodology of faith-based conflict intervention.
4 • To foster and effect increasingly complementary collaboration with traditional track one diplomatic and peacemaking efforts. z
The objectives of the PACIS PROJECT are four-fold:
Discover
3 • To create an academic home for faith-based diplomacy while preparing the next generation of faith-based diplomats.
Timothy Pownall Acceptanc Speech
December 2011 | 19
On the Edge
My Journey to Inner Peace by Kanoe Yim Wheeler
Gandhi once gave a call-to-action, “Be the change you want to see in the world.”
How have you responded? For me, I am fully aware that unless I find peace within, I cannot provide a peaceful space for others. I cannot be a peacekeeper if I do not know how to be “peace-filled.”
My return to inner peace began with the awareness that my belief systems, thoughts, and values create the life I experience. What I now know is that as I challenge these belief systems, rather than avoid them, I open the doorway to my higher consciousness. My inner peace was disrupted at the age of seven with the sudden death of my father. In that moment, because it was so painful, the only way I knew how to find tranquility was by controlling my emotions and pushing the pain away. While I thought I was fighting to maintain my inner peace, I now realize that I had abandoned it by vowing to never experience that kind of pain again. What I didn’t realize was that in doing so, I limited my ability to be fully engaged emotionally in all of my life experiences, whether joyous or painful.
20 | ADR Times Perspectives
I controlled my feelings for several decades before I began to notice that my incessant resistance to feeling any pain, and my relentless need to manipulate my emotions, was becoming increasingly exhausting. The burden became so great that I simply wanted relief.
But how could I do that without feeling completely exposed, vulnerable, and open to pain? First, I found courage. I took an honest look at how I was relating to the world and determined whether or not my behavior was serving my highest good.
Second, I allowed myself to be vulnerable. I allowed myself to feel the emotions of the painful life experiences I had pushed away and most importantly, the grief I felt when my father died. This step was crucial because once I allowed myself to feel my grief, I was able to release it. I was astonished! It was that simple. The suffering no longer had a hold on me.
Third, I took ownership of all of my life experiences and recognized that I created my own suffering through limited thoughts and irrational beliefs. The empowering part of this awareness was understanding
that I actually possessed the full authority to choose whether to suffer under the weight of these stories or to be free from them.
No longer fearful, liberated from stifled emotions, and free from limiting thoughts, I realize that I now have the liberty to create a new beginning. The possibilities of what I can become are much greater than ever before. To me, inner peace means having the courage to surrender control and allow myself to be vulnerable enough to embrace my own suffering. When I embrace my suffering, I conquer it. In that moment, healing can occurs and I am able to overcome pain in exchange for a sense of peace.
I think that having inner peace is a necessary first step for any peacemaker. We have to know peace within ourselves before we can help others find it in themselves. We have to have gone through the process of embracing our own suffering if we are going to stand a chance guiding others along that road. Aligned in harmony and “peace-filled,” I now am the peace I want to see in the world, and I am able to share that peace with the world. z
Kanoe Yim Wheeler is a Relationship Manager with the Agency for Dispute Resolution. She has over 20 years of management experience in the legal field. Her most recent position
was as the Executive Director with Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP. Prior to that, she was the Administrative Manager at Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP’s Los Angeles office. There Kanoe served as one of the key players on the Management Team and supervised the LA office’s largest support staff department consisting of over 60 secretaries. Before moving to Skadden, Kanoe was the Office Manager at the Law Offices of Richard A. Lovich, staff counsel for Infinity Insurance. Her prior experience also includes working for Younesi & Yoss, LLP, Hunt, Ortmann, Palffy & Rossell, Inc. and sole practitioner Stephen D. Sawyer.
Kanoe’s ability to provide solutions and methodologies to address organizational needs led her to understand the vital role each person plays in the success of an organization and further inspired her commitment to empower others to achieve their potential. Kanoe is trained in alternative dispute resolution through the Los Angeles County Bar Association. In addition, her leadership training includes, The Landmark Forum Education and The Advanced Course, Pacific Institute’s Imagine 21 Curriculum and Self I-dentity through Ho’oponopono. Kanoe is currently pursuing a Master’s Degree in Spiritual Psychology from the University of Santa Monica.
Have an article, story, comment, or topic suggestion you would like to share with ADR Times? Email editor@adrtimes.com or contribute online at: www.adrtimes.com/contribute
www.AgencyforDisputeResolution.com
December 2011 | 21
The Healing Power of Reconciliation Moving Past Divorce by Dina Haddad
After separation and during the divorce process, you likely have become angry, resentful, and hostile towards your spouse. When our relationships become threatening, such as a damaged marriage relationship, we protect ourselves by forming a negative image of the other person. This negative image helps us live on with our lives, without experiencing psychological disintegration. [1] In other words, if I believe my spouse is at fault and a horrible person, life is more bearable. As a result, our view of the event, relationship, and all the negative beliefs we use to help us cope become imbedded in our minds. Your spouse’s views, ideas, and beliefs which were clever and wise are now simple-minded and faulty. What used to be unique and special about your spouse is silly and foolish. Your thoughts continue to deepen as a reaction to your anger and even hostility toward your spouse. [2] During this process, we avoid looking at our contribution to the failed relationship.[3] When we hurt, we distance ourselves. Part of the divorce is the very physical
22 | ADR Times Perspectives
separation between yourself and your spouse. This physical separation makes it very difficult to hear any disconfirming information about your spouse.[4] Your ex-spouse can no longer explain his or her beliefs, attitudes, or actions, because you are no longer together. Instead, you are surrounded by others who will likely encourage your beliefs, attitudes, and actions, not those of your spouse. You seek out friends and family to reassure you that it was in fact your spouse’s fault. The more you process your view, the more your view, even if it is faulty, becomes a part of your reality.
Although this behavioral pattern is comfortable, it leaves you with a painful past and an inability to create a new lasting future.[5] You must decide whether you wish to reconcile your relationship with your ex-spouse so that you can co-exist in a mutual understanding of what went wrong. In the dissolution of your marriage, you might have been at fault, your ex-spouse at fault, or, more likely, a combination of both your behaviors. You must be completely honest with yourself and identify your responsibility
for the failed marriage. Have you misused your marriage relationship causing your spouse to suffer? Have you been hurt because your spouse violated your trust? First, you need to be responsible for any harm you caused your spouse. If, on the other hand, you were the one that was faulted, you need to acknowledge your pain and hurt but with the specific purpose of letting it go. If you want to reconcile and have a healthy future, you can no longer be a victim. Be honest about the areas you have harmed your spouse and areas you have been hurt. Consider speaking with a friend or a counselor to help you through this process. To complete the reconciliation process, you really need to work with your spouse, who will also have to go through these steps. If he or she is willing, then you will be ready to discuss your discoveries, acknowledge your hurt, and if at fault for any behavior, ask for forgiveness. If your spouse will not agree, you will still receive the benefit of forgiving yourself, your spouse, and releasing yourself to a positive future through the first step of the reconciliation process. z
Edge Dina Haddad is a family law attorney, panel mediator at the Agency for Dispute Resolution and principal of Families First Mediation. She is a Judge Pro Tempore for the Personal Property Arbitration in Santa Clara County. She received her LL.M. in Alternate Dispute Resolution from Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine School of Law and a Juris Doctor from the University of California, Hastings College. www.ffmediation.com
ENDNOTES [1] Donna Hicks, The Role of Identity Reconstruction in Promoting Reconciliation IN FORGIVENESS AND RECONCILIATION: RELIGION, PUBLIC POLICY, & CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION (ed. Raymond G. Helmick et. al., 2001) 129-149. [2] KENNETH CLOAK, MEDIATING DANGEROUSLY: THE FRONTIERS OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION (2001) 73-86. [3] Hicks, supra note 1. [4] Id. [5] Ronal W. Shriver Jr., Forgiveness: A Bridge Across Abysses of Revenge IN FORGIVENESS AND RECONCILIATION: RELIGION, PUBLIC POLICY, & CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION (ed. Raymond G. Helmick et. al., 2001) 151-167.
December 2011 | 23
Commentary
From Conflict
to
Candy Canes
A Holiday Reflection on Religious Acceptance by Zachary Ulrich
A
hhhh yes, here we are again – The Holidays. Yes, yes indeed it’s that time of year when most of us travel hither and thither to be with our loved ones; to give and receive presents; and generally take some time to “breathe” and reflect on the year. In fact, sometimes the festive spirit of the season becomes too palpable – so real that I swear I can hear the sleigh bells a jinglin’ wherever I … oh wait, it’s just the muzak playing as I buy my tooth brush at the grocery store. … and, oh… “oh, sorry ma’am!” – just ran into someone trying to dodge the animatronic elf outside “Santa’s Wonderland” in the mall. …
Jewish, or Kwanzaa religions traditions – this commentary is broader than that. What I do want to say is that there are ways we can all celebrate all religious traditions – or at a minimum, respect them. And I think there’s no better time to talk about religious acceptance than the holidays.
In many ways Christmas and Hanukkah today are symbols – both powerful and important. The word “Christmas” is actually a compound for “Christ’s Mass,” and while December 25th is meant to celebrate the actual calendar day of Jesus’ birth, the actual day (and year, for that matter) is a topic of much dispute among scholars. And that’s my point: With all of the hullabaloo Hanukkah actually originated as a “festival of lights” over presents, cards, Black Friday deals, New Year’s to celebrate the successful Jewish Maccabean Revolt resolutions….it’s exhausting. And it’s distracting – against the Seleuicid emperor Antiochus IV. There’s a from the aspects of our lives that often matter the most, lot of interesting history behind each holiday. But what’s and from the very reasons many of us celebrate this most important, I think, is the symbol that the holidays provide for many people, and indeed what New Year’s time of year to begin with. No, no, no, I’m not going to go on about how in a secular way provides: They are symbols of renewal, we should celebrate and remember just the Christian, a bright future … in short, of hope. (They’re also a great
24 | ADR Times Perspectives
We seem to “know” “right and wrong.” And those “not with us,” are “mistaken.”
There’s great danger in generalizing assumptions to entire groups of people based on limited information. It’s called stereotyping, and a quick glance at human history shows us only too well how easily false assumptions about “others” not only create religious intolerance but also perpetuate cycles of violence.
excuse to eat good food, enjoy good company, and generally be merry for a few days off work!)
In fact, some social scientists have begun to find evidence that as humans we have a ”dual” capacity to both “value equality,” but then at the same time make judgments about “others” who are not like us. … And if we’re honest with ourselves, this “dual” logic probably exists in most of our minds. In fact, I’ll say it right here – I’ll admit it openly: While indeed I do hold high the civic and moral value of “equality for all,” if I’m honest with myself there have been, and likely always will be times when I make judgments of other people. … And I’ll do it based on what I know, what I value, what is comfortable for me, and what I have come to trust.
But it’s not all bundt cakes and Reindeer…. because there’s also the flip-side of religion today – the conflictThere’s a lot of interesting history behind each holiday. inducing patterns our societies have But what’s most important ... is the symbol that the holidays embraced. All-too-often today our mass media portrays the images of provide ... symbols of renewal, a bright future ... in short, of hope. horrible atrocities committed in the name of various religions, while ignoring the billions of religious followers world- We all judge. As humans we have to do it to wide who do great deeds in the name of their faith. survive; to make “heuristic”-based decisions based on And with the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the what information we have; to forward our internal life resulting War on Terror, it can be easy to develop what narratives. And few things speak more deeply to our social psychologists call an “us vs. them” or in- and sense of self, identity, purpose, or comfort than religious out-group mentality. It’s easy for us to develop radical ideology. For many of us, our faith is our compass. Our notions of what followers of “other” religions are like; faith is what keeps us balanced, directed, assured, and what “other” religions think, feel, say, do, value, and connected to others who believe the same. Our faith is despise. Before we know it, we seem to “know” all our rock. about “other” religions and anyone who follows them.
December 2011 | 25
It is because of religion’s power in all of our lives that it is important to always seek to understand and respect those of faiths other than ours ... even if we don’t have a particular religion. Because if we don’t, then we run the risk of “valuing equality” while still “judging others” in ways that produce division, strife, even violence over issues that run to the core of who we are as human beings. Let us seek to first understand. Let us commit ourselves to understanding and accepting that there will likely always be religious differences between the great peoples of our planet, and move on ... in peace.
scores of well-intentioned people who “tolerate” those of other faiths, but never truly “accept” them – that is, never truly respect alternative perspectives as much as their own. The bridge between tolerance and total acceptance is a hard one to cross, one that takes years of introspection – but one that is so vital to fostering a healthy, peaceful world.
which is wonderful. But intention and follow-through are often two very different things. It is an established sociological principal that our ideals often do not match our actions when it comes to judging those “like” and “unlike” ourselves. Second, there’s a difference between “tolerance” and true “acceptance.” … I’ve met
2. Seek out people from other faiths and learn their “stories.” – Most major faiths have many stories, fables, and otherwise legends that ground their ethic and give followers ways to relate to the world. Some of the most fascinating conversations I’ve ever had involved friends from other faiths sharing their stories
So how can we make the leap? How can we, in this festive Holiday season, come to better “accept,” and so less judge, those of other faiths? I’d like to think that a Why are some so scared of other peoples’ faiths few simple ideas might help: 1. Attend a service of another faith – Yup, you simply because they don’t match ours? Why are some heard me right. Of course, I’m not saying that one must so angry over the beliefs of others simply because they disagree? Sure, there are social structures that in some do this in order to better understand and appreciate other ways oppress those of certain faiths: When’s the last time religions, but it’s certainly helpful. For instance, some the United States elected a Muslim president? But the of the most eye-opening religious experiences I’ve ever goal then should become to help create understanding, had were while attending an Orthodox Jewish service in which doesn’t require judging those with whom we Washington, D.C., a Muslim service in a mosque in Cairo, and a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints service disagree. Judging only makes things worse. I say all of this with two major caveats: First, in Salt Lake City. Am I going to convert to any of these I’d like to think that most people at least intend to view faiths? No. But did each experience give me a deeper others’ religions in an accepting and respectful manner, respect for the faiths and lives of others? Absolutely.
Zachary Ulrich
Zachary Ulrich is a Contributing Editor at ADR Times and professional neutral and writer on mediation, psychology, and business practices. He is currently working towards his Juris Doctorate, Masters in Dispute Resolution, and Masters in Clinical Psychology from Pepperdine University. Zachary is a graduate of the two-year General Electric Financial Management Program, where he held several financial analysis positions and studied business operations and strategies from executives within the organization. He is a graduate of American University in Washington, D.C., where he obtained his BS in Finance and his BA in both Economics and International Studies. Read more articles by Zachary Ulrich at: www.adrtimes.com/articles/author/zacharyulrich
26 | ADR Times Perspectives
and insights. It’s been said that the mark of an educated mind is being able to at once hold an idea and not necessarily agree. Put another way, a good discussion of contrasting viewpoints never hurts the participants unless they are scared of what they might find. So start a good debate – dive-in, and allow your mind to wander. I’ve always found that taking the time to truly allow myself to hear others’ viewpoints only humanizes those perspectives. And once humanized, it’s that much harder for us to morally judge others’ views.
There truly is a lot of strife in the world today – a lot of violence perpetuated by fear and misunderstanding and an unwillingness to accept alternative viewpoints. Religion is such an important aspect of so many peoples’ lives across the globe – and that’s why it’s so easy for us to let our cognitive biases shape our views on others’ faiths. Let me be clear: I’m calling for a sense of balance when we consider our faith relative to others’ – no matter how 3. Speak out when you see fear driving conflict. “right” or “correct” our – And this isn’t easy. Despite all the modern advances of faith seems to us, nor how our society, and despite the proliferation of information “wrong” or “incorrect” over the internet, so many times in our “developed” others’ does. It’s not just era we still see large numbers of people rise up against about tolerating those around us with different faiths, those they perceive as “different.” People are afraid of it’s about truly accepting them – loving them, as human what they don’t know, and ultimately turn to violence to beings and as fellow travelers on this journey we call gain a sense of “control” over that fear. But technology life. now bridges information gaps that used to drive and So in about a week, when we’re all snug and perpetuate the fear of cultures beyond our homes. ... cozying up with loved ones, singing carols, opening And now it’s time for society to move-on, past that fear. presents, lighting our menorahs – whatever we do This starts at the individual level – and it starts with this Holiday Season – let us keep in mind that true each of us. Try to become aware of when you judge acceptance will always be the ultimate peacekeeper others hastily, and most certainly try to be a voice of behind the “peace and joy” of our cherished Holidays. reason when you see others headed towards judgment z based on fear. Write an opinion for a local newspaper, write to Congress, be a voice for those of other faiths and backgrounds, even if they don’t match yours.
Comment
Mark Grossman, Esq. Neutral | Mediator
“
I can see a time when Dispute Resolution is the primary way people resolve disputes and Court Trial is known as ALR - Alternative of Last Resort. “
”
800.616.1202 x713 mark.grossman@agencydr.com www.markgrossman.agencydr.com
December 2011 | 27
Commentary
Ban Ki-Moon’s Mediation Kick
The New Tool for Global Peacekeeping? by Mikita Weaver
In following the world of mediation over the past few months, I’ve noticed an interesting shift by United Nations officials. It seems Ban Kimoon is on what some might call a “Mediation Kick.” In international circles, Mediation is quickly becoming recognized as a way to prevent conflicts globally. Ban Ki-moon recently said, “I am pleased to note how far we have come in recognizing mediation as an invaluable tool for conflict management and resolution.” Mediation is one of many tools the UN employs as part of professional and effective support to complex peacemaking processes. While mediation is only a small fraction of the $7 billion peacekeeping general spending budget, the international community is slowly expanding these programs. Mediation stands out in many ways as a cost effective peacekeeping tool and preventative measure.
In his address to the 66th session of the UN General Assembly, Ugandan Vice President Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi emphasized the importance of mediation to avert crisis before it becomes violent. Ssekandi notes that mediation is a worthwhile investment and is relatively inexpensive compared to other peacekeeping efforts without the prospective loss of life. In countries where the cost of diplomacy is too high,
mediation is a realistic alternative within reach of most governments and can be utilized to facilitate solutions. In light of Liberia’s disastrous 14-year civil war, Vice-President Joseph N. Boakai told the General Assembly that the international community must focus on preventative measures before crisis erupts by employing tools like mediation as soon as signs of conflicts begin to emerge. Not only can mediation help prevent conflicts but its unique approach may also help alleviate tensions and restore stability in a post-conflict country.
Mediation can help parties engage in dialogue and prevent conflict from escalating. With mediation in the international spotlight, there may be a new role for women. Foreign Minister Aurelia Frick of Liechtenstein told the General Assembly that the international community must do more to encourage women to participate in conflict prevention and resolution. Women are often perceived as peacemakers. From the family to the workplace, women often find themselves facilitating
Mikita Weaver
conversations between people. If I may speak in generalities, women often focus on communication and strive to listen to others. Likewise, women are often astutely aware of the various emotions and interplay of feelings in the room. Male or female, these skills make an individual a better mediator. In terms of preventing explosive conflicts, we need people around the table who are adept at engaging in dialogue and likely to help others reach resolution. Frick says, “The UN must lead by example and appoint more women as leaders in mediation and other transitional processes.” Mediation is all about using untapped resources. Employing more women in the peacemaking process is just one example of how to effectively utilize available resources. Mediation can help parties engage in dialogue and prevent conflict from escalating. Given the economy, governments and countries may not have the budget to create expansive programs to both deal with conflict and to try to prevent conflict. Mediation programs offer a cost-effective method that can be implemented that effectively do both.
Mediation has great potential to help “keep the peace.” It is refreshing to see officials from the United Nations and around the globe recognize mediation as the powerful tool that it is. z
Mikita Weaver is the Editor-in-Chief of ADR Times, a premier online dispute resolution community. As an associate at Northrup Schlueter APLC, she focuses predominantly on litigation and arbitration in the field of construction insurance defense. She received her Juris Doctorate at Pepperdine University School of Law and received a Masters in Dispute Resolution from the Straus Institute. Mikita has been published on the Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal and worked at the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution in London. As an avid traveler, she continues to explore various dispute resolution issues and how they vary from region to region. She graduated magna cum laude from Berea College with a philosophy degree and her favorite things include yoga, cooking, photography, and singing with the Legal Voices of Los Angeles and Lawyer’s Philharmonic. Meet Mikita— www.adrtimes.com/editor-in-chief
30 | ADR Times Perspectives
Comment Check out the ADR Times Editor’s Commentary
www.adrtimes.com/editors-commentary
Become a Contributor ADR Times is always seeking fresh and engaging content for both adrtimes.com and ADR Times Perspectives, our monthly newsletter. Please contact editor@adrtimes.com to send your ideas. You can also submit content online: www.adrtimes.com/connect
Advertise with ADR Times
ADR Times, Inc www.adrtimes.com 9595 Wilshire Blvd., 9th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Promote your ADR practice / organization / event and more to the ADR and legal communities. ADR Times offers ad space online, in email, and in our monthly newsletter ADR Times Perspectives. To learn more, contact editor@adrtimes.com or go online: www.adrtimes.com/advertise
Subscribe to ADR Times Newsletters & updates To receive ADR Times Newsletters, the ADR Times Weekly Twitter Round-Up, and Articles & News, Events, Jobs, and other content updates via email, sign-up online at: www.adrtimes.com/subscribe