|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
   |
|
|
 |
|
||
|
TOC | Introduction | One | Two | Three | Four | Five | Six | Seven | Eight | Nine | Ten | Eleven | Twelve | Notes | Contributors Private Peacemaking USIP-Assisted Peacemaking Projects of Nonprofit Organizations Track 11/2 Diplomacy in Northern Ireland by Mary Boergers
“I find myself starting to understand my opponent’s beliefs. I get confused because I wonder if my own beliefs are that important to me. Is this natural? Does everyone feel like this?” The “Track 11/2” Diplomacy project of the Ireland–U.S. Public Leadership Program (IUSPLP) at the University of Maryland is an innovative peacebuilding initiative that focuses on emerging political leaders. The project targets political leaders between twenty and forty years old from Northern Ireland and the Republic because they are less likely to be trapped in old stereotypes or constrained by the rigid ideology of the incumbent politicians. They are also more likely than grassroots community leaders eventually to secure the political power required to effect positive change. By developing the leadership potential of the next generation of political leaders and teaching them conflict resolution and negotiating skills, IUSPLP believes that a major step can be taken toward lasting peace. IUSPLP’s efforts in Northern Ireland can be a model for other parts of the world experiencing intractable ethnic and religious conflict. IUSPLP, with funding from the United States Institute of Peace, is working to help rebuild the political infrastructure in Northern Ireland. IUSPLP has begun a sustained and comprehensive training program for a group of young leaders from all of the major political parties in Northern Ireland and the Republic. It uses cutting edge technology as a means of providing the emerging leaders with the skills needed to permanently end the violence and return to the rule of law. In developing IUSPLP’s Track 11/2 Diplomacy project, we learned that several elements are key to success. They are
To be effective, a project needs to take into account the political realities facing the young leaders, helping them learn ways to take risks for peace without undermining their political futures. Ethnic or religious groups involved in long-term conflict are intolerant of new ideas, different ways of doing things, or anyone who strays from the “party line.” It is essential to teach participants how to cope back home and to lead in a community of people stuck in old stereotypes and overwhelmed with the hatred that stems from centuries of grievance. One way to protect the political future of the young leaders is to have the support of the current party leaders, if possible having them select the participants. This sanctions and legitimizes the program while helping to insulate participants from personal political attack. Finding a neutral location away from the conflict allows the young leaders a degree of space and creates an atmosphere that is more conducive to dialogue, personal growth, and reflection. Keeping details of the training confidential and out of the media is essential. The media spotlight only serves to force participants into rigid official positions and may jeopardize their political future. The establishment of trust among program participants and a willingness to understand the “other” will only occur over time. That is why an ongoing project that offers several opportunities for the young leaders to come together is necessary if such a training project is to have a long-term impact. Mandating that at least one-third of the participants be female positively affects the dynamics of the program. It brings into the training a group of people who are more likely to be focused on the present and future and less likely to be trapped in the old macho ideologies that have been obstacles to peace for generations. Having young Americans participate adds a neutral element and helps prevent automatic polarization along traditional ethnic and religious lines. Campaign training is a powerful incentive for the emerging leaders who eagerly seek ways to hone their electioneering skills. In fact it is this training which makes some willing to take the personal and political risks of participating in the overall project. Establishing a mentoring component helps extend the reach of the training beyond the program’s participants by creating an intergenerational leadership ladder. The mentoring program IUSPLP created brings together senior party leaders with the emerging leaders in their own parties while each young leader mentors a university or high school student. Content of the Training ProgramThe initial conference that IUSPLP conducted was historic because it bought together, for the first time, representatives of all of the major political parties in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. The training focus was on transformational leadership development and included workshops to improve the emerging leaders’ public speaking, media relations, and television skills.Because the BBC and Belfast Telegraph discovered that the initial conference was taking place and because participation was controversial and personally dangerous, these accommodations were made so that all participants could attend: Unionists were not required to have direct dialogue with the participants from Sinn Fein. While everyone took part in large group presentations, small group discussions were kept separate. One unique aspect of the training program was the use of the College of Business and Management’s IBM Multimedia Teaching Theater at the University of Maryland. The IBM Theater, a state-of-the-art, fully networked computer facility, enabled participants to communicate anonymously and to consider ideas without regard to which side of the sectarian divide the idea came from. Thus, participants could focus on what was being said rather than who was doing the talking. While this anonymous environment has great potential, we learned just how volatile it can be. In fact the session in the IBM Theater proved the most difficult and challenging of the whole conference. The anonymous environment, without the usual social constraints, brought out the participants’ intense fears and deep-seated antagonisms. As difficult as it was, however, the IBM Theater was also the most transformational event of the conference. The second phase of the training program, the Conflict Transformation Conference, supported by the United States Institute of Peace, focused on assisting participants to understand the nature of dialogue and develop the skills needed to address their underlying needs and fears. It helped the young leaders gain insight into one another’s concerns and clarified how assumptions feed into a sense of impasse. The skills were developed in an action-reflection mode, moving from one-on-one negotiations, to small group negotiations, to third party mediation. The issues under negotiation progressed from such non-threatening issues as a dispute on the creation of a health center to sensitive dialogue about the issue of decommissioning weapons. The discussion of decommissioning tested whether participants would be able to transfer learning to the actual issues that divide them in Northern Ireland. Training components featured lectures, case studies, simulations, role-playing exercises, and reflection sessions, as well as opportunities to practice delivering a campaign message on camera and anonymous interactive dialogue through interconnected computers in the IBM Multimedia Theater. The content included an introduction to the theoretical basis of the sources of conflict, conflict resolution, and group dynamics; simulations to put conflict resolution theory into practice; a description of the elements of an effective mentoring relationship; and information on effective campaign message development and practice in on-camera public speaking, as well as strategies for dealing with the press. The experiential training modules deepened participants’ understanding of the underlying motivations of people in conflict, barriers to conflict resolution, and techniques for ameliorating situations of seemingly intractable conflict. The young leaders’ group explored techniques designed to help them understand how to clarify interests, create options, identify alternatives, reframe the issues, separate people issues from substantive issues, and develop strategies for reaching consensus. The second conference again used the cutting edge technology in the College of Business’s IBM Teaching Theater to promote interactive problem solving and cooperative learning. This time, however, the use of the groupware was much more successful in demonstrating how anonymous computer brainstorming can help promote dialogue among people from rigidly polarized societies. In the IBM Theater we were able to use the computers to elicit issues of importance to participants, set priorities, and establish an agenda which reflected the group’s needs. The anonymous environment gave everyone an equal voice, promoted inclusion of all points of view, and allowed hidden issues to surface in a nonthreatening way. The most disappointing aspect of the Track 11/2 Diplomacy project was that we were not able to secure participation from the two largest Unionist parties at the second conference. The week before the conference, the IRA killed two policemen in Northern Ireland. This traumatized the Unionist community and resulted in the Ulster Unionist Party and Democratic Unionist Party representatives refusing to participate unless we rescinded our invitation to Sinn Fein. However, it was decided that in order not to mimic the political pressures in Northern Ireland, the session should go ahead as planned. People could exclude themselves but they could not force the exclusion of others. Track 11/2 Diplomacy is a challenging, difficult and at times frustrating undertaking. It faces the same political pressures, pitfalls and tensions as Track 1. Events in the official political arena inevitably affect any Track 11/2 initiative. The program can be undermined and the whole project jeopardized by incidents of violence. However, the potential to transform the political landscape makes it all worthwhile. As Margaret Mead said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world, indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” TOC | Introduction | One | Two | Three | Four | Five | Six | Seven | Eight | Nine | Ten | Eleven | Twelve | Notes | Contributors
Home | Jobs | FAQs | Contact Us | Directions | Privacy Policy | Site Map United States Institute of Peace -- 1200 17th Street NW -- Washington, DC 20036
|