How to resolve a conflict
As the year ends John Lampen offers some wise advice to those negotiating Brexit
Friends in the twentieth century have made a considerable contribution to the art and science of conflict transformation. This came partly from the involvement of Friends like Philip Noel-Baker, Corder Catchpool, Sydney Bailey and Adam Curle in international peacemaking; partly from Quaker participation in the growth of academic peace studies; and partly from work at the personal level, especially with children and prisoners, which made them identify basic principles and express them clearly and simply. Of course, they did not achieve this alone. Close partnerships with others and the sharing of ideas were a hallmark of the work from the time of Quakers’ warm relationship with Mohandas Gandhi.
Bringing together these different strands, Friends found that effective peacemaking is founded on respect, good communication and cooperation, principles that clearly rule out violence. Their guidelines for resolving a conflict included:
- Treat the other person or group as a partner in solving the problem;
- Be open about your own real needs rather than adopting a ‘position’;
- Recognise and try to meet the other party’s needs;
- Don’t get trapped in your first idea for a solution, work ideas out together;
- Do not make fudged agreements which each side will interpret differently later;
- Avoid threats, coercion and arbitrary demands (such as artificial deadlines);
- Use conciliatory language, don’t blame the other party;
- Don’t rehash old arguments that didn’t work before and won’t work now; and
- Look for ‘do-ables’ – small steps that are practical immediately and build trust.
To solve a conflict it is crucial to understand the issue of needs, wants and positions. Taking a position implies digging one’s heels in and refusing to consider any change. Wants often oppose one another, and nobody can have everything they want. Needs are different in that we have a right to get what we really need; and time and again it is found that both sides can give each other what they need without suffering serious loss.
Once we acknowledge the other party’s needs, it encourages them to sympathise with ours. In Northern Ireland, for example, the stated positions were incompatible; but it was possible for each community to meet the need of the other for respect, protection of life, freedom from fear and a share in government without losing out themselves.
There is plenty of evidence that lasting solutions to international conflicts can be found by using these guidelines. A striking example is the part they played in the end of apartheid and minority rule in South Africa in the 1990s. So, I find it very disappointing they seem to be employed so little in the Brexit negotiations. We are not told exactly what is happening, but there is clearly little progress. Instead, the public statements of the negotiators are filled with ‘non-negotiable’ positions, denigration of the other side and failure to acknowledge that they, too, have needs. This is damaging to the interests of all of us, whether we opposed or supported Brexit.
I have no solution to offer – only the suggestion that if we resolve to use good conflict handling methods in our daily lives, families, workplaces and organisations, we strengthen the possibility that one day they will become the norm.
