Conflict resolution Training
for Military Peacekeepers
By Dr. Greg Tillet
Paper presented
at the INCORE Conference on the Training and Preparation of Military
and Civilian Peacekeepers, Aberfoyle House, Magee College, University
of Ulster, 13-15th June 1996
Contents
- Introduction
- Executive
Summary
-
Conflict Resolution Training for Military Peacekeepers
- Endnotes
- Bibliography
INCORE hosted
a major conference on the Training and Preparation of Military and Civilian
Peacekeepers at its headquarters on 13-15 June 1996. The conference
drew a wide audience of peacekeepers, policymakers, NGO representatives,
academics and young researchers as well as a range of people actively
involved in the training and preparation of peacekeepers. Among those
to address the conference were two former commanders of the UNPROFOR
operation in the Former Yugoslavia; Lt Gen Satish Nambiar (Retd) of
the Indian Defence Forces and Lt Gen Lars-Eric Wahlgren (Retd) of the
Swedish Army. The conference was preceded by the formal launch of INCORE
at its new headquarters, Aberfoyle House, adjacent to the University
of Ulster's Magee Campus. Lt General Nambiar performed this ceremony.
One of the most
engaging contributions to the conference came from Greg Tillett. His
paper on "Conflict Resolution Training for Military Peacekeepers" was
based on his experiences of working with Australian Defence Forces personnel
prior to their deployment on peacekeeping operations. He argues that
all soldiers embarking on peacekeeping missions should be equipped with
a knowledge of basic conflict resolution techniques and need to understand
the pacific roles which modern peacekeeping operations expect them to
perform. He went on to outline a standard framework for training in
conflict resolution which has been successfully developed in co-operation
with the Australian Defence Forces. It recognises that soldiers are
not only likely to experience conflict when serving on their mission,
but also at the pre-departure and return phases of the mission. The
conflict resolution training framework introduces participants to the
basic principles and practices of conflict resolution, analytical problem
solving and application of conflict resolution. The conference paper
drew a very positive response, particularly because of its practical
applications and a clarity which is often lacking in literature on conflict
resolution. This prompted INCORE to publish an expanded version as an
Occasional Paper.
The conference
coincided with the launch of the report of a research project on the
Training and Preparation of Military and Civilian Peacekeepers. The
Executive Summary of the report is included in this Occasional Paper.
Top
of page
Post-Cold War
conflicts and threats to international security are becoming increasingly
complex and demand ever more elaborate peacekeeping operations from
the United Nations. Rather than simply keeping the warring parties apart,
PKOs increasingly need pre-conflict preventive and post-conflict peace-building
elements. The new demands being made on PKOs call for greater attention
to be paid to the training and preparation of peacekeepers (both civilian
and military) and to the widening range of ancillary support functions
essential for the success of a peacekeeping mission.
INCORE was asked
by the United Nations University to examine the issues related to the
training and preparation of UN peacekeepers (military and civilian),
and report back with recommended improvements for peacekeeper training.
Crucially, the recommendations are based on the opinions and experiences
of peacekeepers themselves. Those actually charged with implementing
UN mandates on the ground, and who risk their lives for the mandates,
often express the view that their voices are unheard. This report is
based on the vast body of experience which has been accumulated by peacekeepers.
The part of the
project relating to military peacekeeping draws on the experiences of
Sweden and Ireland: countries with a long history of contributions to
UN PKOs. Both Sweden and Ireland have contributed to the development
of norms associated with 'good peacekeeping', and have also concerned
themselves with the question of how the training of peacekeepers can
be improved. During detailed interviews, peacekeepers from both countries
were asked about their motives for joining peacekeeping operations,
their views on the training and preparation they received, their reflections
on their peacekeeping experience, and their suggestions for the improvement
of training and peacekeeping. The interviews resulted in a frank and
honest overview of contemporary peacekeeping. The interviewees pointed
towards the need for specific peacekeeper training in addition to regular
military training. They also raised a number of issues salient to the
future shape of UN peacekeeping in general such as the confused interface
between civilian and military peacekeepers, and tensions between peacekeepers
of different nationalities.
Civilian peacekeepers
are often drawn from diverse backgrounds. Furthermore, they are often
entrusted with a wide range of tasks and perform their duties alone
or as part of ad hoc units. As a result, the training and preparation
of civilian peacekeepers raises a number of specific problems such as
the location of the training, the frequent need for a pool of trained
civilian personnel, and the relevance of the training to a particular
mission. The Austrian based 'International Civilian Peacekeeping and
Peace-building Training Program' (IPT) adopts a comprehensive approach
to the training of civilian peacekeepers and also offers a unique opportunity
to study civilian training. A questionnaire targeted at individuals
who had completed the IPT programme helped frame recommendations for
improvements in the training and preparation of civilian peacekeepers.
The central message
of the military part of the report is the importance of a holistic approach
to the training of peacekeepers; all personnel, regardless of rank and
function on a PKO, must receive specific training. Normal military training
is not enough. Contact skills are of particular importance. The establishment
of comprehensive and long-term support services for peacekeepers and
their families are also deemed essential, particularly given the stressful
nature of many of the activities associated with modern PKOs. As the
training of peacekeepers currently varies from country to country, common
standards of preparation would enhance the cohesion and effectiveness
of all PKOs. It is strongly recommended that personnel from one country
participate in the training programmes of other countries. A centralisation
of the preparation of peacekeepers for a particular mission is also
important to avoid problems of poor co-ordination at the moment of deployment.
The study of the
training and preparation of civilian peacekeepers points to the need
for comprehensive and standardised training programmes that take account
of the requirements of modern multi-dimensional PKOs. Co-ordination
between concerned training institutions should be developed - possibly
by way of a global database - in order to build up a pool of trained
civilian personnel. Selection procedures should also become more sophisticated,
to emphasise the quality of the personnel and their suitability for
a particular mission. The training programmes themselves should pay
increasing attention to the substantive functions to be carried out
in the field; normal professional training and experience is insufficient
and must be complemented by mission and function specific training.
Top
of page
Military personnel
undertaking peacekeeping operations face a range of challenges, some
of them arising from the styles of behaviour that have often been learned
in traditional military training (for example, the use of abrupt orders;
the threat or use of force to exercise power; the ability to identify
the status and potential power of any other person). In peacekeeping
operations, personnel may or may not have any power (including the use
of weapons) to coerce, may have no way of readily identifying the status
or potential power of any person with whom they are dealing, may have
very limited ability to communicate accurately with local residents,
and will often be subject to instructions which require them to act
in a policing rather than a military role.(1)
It is sometimes
suggested that military personnel preparing for peacekeeping operations
need to be "untrained" in military behaviour and retrained into a peacekeeping
role. This is virtually impossible, given that the time available for
peacekeeping training is unlikely to be adequate for such re-education.
Nor is it necessary. Effective peacekeeping training can, and should,
build onto conventional military training, facilitating the development
of additional, rather than contradictory, skills and styles of behaviour.
The need for specialist
training of peacekeeping forces has been identified in a number of recent
evaluations of the United Nations' peacekeeping operations, as have
the detrimental effects of inadequately trained forces. A report of
an in-depth evaluation of peacekeeping operations concluded: "Member
States are responsible for training their national civilian, police
and military personnel for participation in peace-keeping missions.
Increasingly, however, Member States offer troops without the necessary
equipment and training."(2)
Apparent contradictions
between a conventional military approach and a peacekeeping approach
can and do arise. Effective training for peacekeeping forces should
address these explicitly. Indeed, explicitly identifying and exploring
potential conflicts between the traditional role of the soldier and
the relatively new role of the peacekeeper, and working on appropriate
means of resolving such conflicts, is an important part of peacekeeper
preparation. For some military personnel, participation in peacekeeping
operations - often referred to critically by them as "policing" - challenges
their original motivations for a military career, and brings into question
their capacity to fulfil new responsibilities which appear to lie beyond
their military training or personal resources.
Peacekeeping forces
will, virtually by definition, be in situations of conflict (between
others) and inevitably become involved in conflict (with others, within
themselves and amongst themselves). Any posting to a military operation
is also likely to increase the risk of conflict within families and
personal relationships. An essential component of any preparation programme
for peacekeeping forces should therefore be conflict resolution.
The role of conflict
resolution in peacekeeping training has been identified in a number
of recent studies.
One of the striking
features of recent analyses by practitioners of peacekeeping has been
the frequency with which reference is made to the relevance of conflict
resolution.(3)
Likewise, it has
been recognised that theory, research and practice in the area of conflict
resolution has an important contribution to make to practical peacekeeping:
There are approaches
now by people who are experienced practitioners of military peacekeeping
to combine their analyses with insights from academic conflict resolution.(4)
Thus, preparation
for peacekeeping needs to differ from conventional military training:
It involves the
psychological change from an adversary to a pacific role; from confrontation
to third party imposition. In peacekeeping there is no enemy: the object
is to avoid hostilities, to improve communication between the parties,
and to advance the process of reconciliation. This necessitates a full
understanding of the causes of the conflict - political, military and
economic - as well as the social and cultural environment. It demands
a fair-minded and impartial approach while operating in an atmosphere
of distrust and suspicion among the protagonists, often under difficult
and provocative circumstances.(5)
The Australian
Defence Forces have a long history, and a distinguished international
reputation in international peacekeeping operations. The Australian
Defence Forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - are all volunteer, professional
personnel. Participants in peacekeeping operations are also volunteers.
Australian personnel have served in operations as diverse as peace monitoring
in the Middle East, mine-clearance training in south-east Asia, peacekeeping
missions in Rwanda and security operations during peace talks in Bougainville.
Participants have included medical, engineering and other technical
specialists, as well as military advisers, communications experts and
infantrymen.
In addition to
their conventional military training, all Australian military personnel
participating in peacekeeping operations undergo a period of at least
two weeks mission-specific preparation which includes training in the
context of the operation, United Nations' peacekeeping doctrine, health
and safety issues, and conflict resolution. Some training is undertaken
on a regular, routine basis for personnel departing for on-going operations
(for example, peace-monitoring in the Middle East, or mine clearance
experts departing for Cambodia and Mozambique), and some is undertaken
in response to special operations (for example, missions which were
sent to Rwanda and Bougainville).
The training and
preparation of peacekeeping forces is co-ordinated by the Deployed Forces
Support Unit based at the Randwick Army Barracks in Sydney, New South
Wales, with training for larger contingents undertaken at the military
base in Townsville, Queensland. Most training is provided by military
personnel, but some specialist components are provided by external,
civilian specialists. The component on conflict resolution was introduced
in response to requests from personnel returning from operations.
A standard framework
for training in conflict resolution has been developed on the basis
of research undertaken with Australian defence force personnel.(6) The
framework is sufficiently flexible to allow participants in any training
session to determine the key issues to be considered, but includes an
introduction to basic principles and practices of conflict resolution.
The framework is also sufficiently flexible to allow the key elements
to be delivered in relatively short training sessions (as little as
one hour) or to be extended productively to longer sessions (of up to
four hours). The training has been designed to minimise discomfort on
the part of participants by avoiding techniques which, although often
included in professional training programmes, have been identified as
producing high resistance amongst defence personnel (notably role plays)
and to maximise participation by and the identification of issues of
specific concern to the participants (for example, by the use of trigger
questions).
Each time the
workshop has been provided it has been modified on the basis of the
comments, questions and issues raised by participants. Work is now being
undertaken to summarise the programme into a basic handbook that can
be provided to peacekeeping forces, and which will include a number
of practical exercises and self-assessment instruments.
The workshop consists
of three components:
1. An introduction
to conflict and its resolution
2. The concept of analytical problem solving conflict resolution
3. The application of the concept
1. An introduction
to conflict and its resolution
Participants are
given a basic introduction to principles of conflict and conflict resolution,
phrased and described in terms relevant to their experience.
The key principles
identified are:
1. Conflict is
inevitable and pervasive. Some conflict can be eliminated, some can
be minimised, some needs to be managed.
2. Conflict is
essentially based in perceptions (rather than reality) and feelings
(rather than facts). It can only be resolved by dealing with perceptions
and feelings.
3. There is no
simple formula which makes conflict go away but there are approaches
which can minimise the destructive effects of conflict and maximise
the possibility of resolution.
4. There are some
common negative responses to conflict which maximise its destructive
effects.
5. Stress increases
the risk of destructive conflict which, in turn, increases the level
of stress; therefore effective stress management is an integral part
of conflict resolution.
6. Most conflict
is predictable. The most effective approach to conflict involves predicting
and preparing for the conflict.
7. A flexible,
adaptive, collaborative approach to conflict is generally more effective:
this can move to a more directive or even coercive approach where necessary.
8. A collaborative,
co-operative approach should usually be attempted initially; assuming
co-operation will often promote it. The level of approach can be heightened
(and quickly) if co-operation fails. Direct confrontation (including
threat) usually provokes an aggressive response and should be avoided
where possible.
9. The effective
resolution of conflict almost inevitably requires talking about it -
preferably with the person or people involved.
10. Not all conflicts
can be externally resolved, and therefore effective internal (or intra-personal)
techniques of resolution may be necessary. These may include stress
management, peer support, counselling or therapy.
As a simple summary:
1. RECOGNISE THAT
CONFLICT IS INEVITABLE - AND NOT NECESSARILY DESTRUCTIVE
2. PREDICT AND
PREPARE FOR THE CONFLICT
3. IDENTIFY RESOURCES
OR TRAINING OR STRATEGIES WHICH MAY ASSIST IN ELIMINATING, MINIMISING
OR MANAGING THE CONFLICT
4. ANALYSE AND
PLAN FOR RESOLUTION WHERE POSSIBLE
5. REFLECT ON
THE EFFECTS OF THE CONFLICT - INCLUDING HOW IT FEELS
6. RECOGNISE THE
IMPACT OF THE CONFLICT: PLAN FOR RECOVERY
7. TALK IT THROUGH
- COLLABORATIVELY WHERE POSSIBLE, EXPLORING PERCEPTIONS AND FEELINGS
8. TAKE A COLLABORATIVE
APPROACH INITIALLY - TURN UP THE HEAT ONLY WHERE NECESSARY, AND THEN
AS GRADUALLY AS POSSIBLE
9. RECOGNISE THAT
SOME CONFLICT BECOMES SELF-PERPETUATING: TALKING IT THROUGH WITH OTHERS
WHO ARE NOT INVOLVED CAN HELP
10. RECOGNISE
THAT SOME CONFLICT CANNOT BE EXTERNALLY RESOLVED: IT IS NECESSARY TO
DEVELOP STRATEGIES FOR MANAGEMENT AND HEALTHY SURVIVAL
Participants are
encouraged to consider how some of these principles may be difficult
to apply in the military context (for example, expression of feelings)
and to explore options for overcoming such difficulties.
Similarly, participants
are introduced to the most common negative responses to conflict. These
are:
DENIAL (e.g.,
suppression, repression, blocking)
WITHDRAWAL (physically, emotionally, psychologically)
SUBMISSION (e.g., with resentment, anxiety or depression)
IMMOBILISATION (e.g., freezing)
DISPLACEMENT (e.g., into family)
INTERNALISATION (e.g., self blame, guilt, anxiety)
PROJECTION (e.g., blame of others, enmification)
ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOUR (e.g., obsessional thought)
DRUGS AND ALCOHOL
VIOLENCE (threat or coercion: physical or psychological)
The majority of
participants are able to identify characteristic negative responses
to conflict (both personally and professionally) and to describe why
they are unlikely to resolve, and likely to increase, conflict. The
majority identify denial, drugs and alcohol and violence as those they
most commonly encounter in themselves and in other military personnel.
Consideration
of negative responses also involves a recognition that the peacekeeper
can provoke conflict as much as minimise it. Provocation often results
from the use of excessive force or threat of force. An abrupt order
may provoke conflict; a polite request is much less likely to do so.
A case example
can be helpful in this regard; the following has been used to considerable
effect in many of the workshops.
You are ordered
to guard a gate, and to comply with the following orders: (1) no-one
is to pass through the gate; (2) you are to use your weapon only to
protect your own life; (3) the local situation is highly volatile and
you are to do nothing that may inflame it. A local resident approaches
you and says: "I am going through the gate." What is your response ?
What are other possible responses ? and what is the likely reaction
by the local resident to each ?
Discussion of
the case study also allows for some of the contradictions inherent in
military personnel undertaking peacekeeping operations to be considered
in a non-threatening way.
It is not unusual
for a participant, usually humorously, to suggest "Try it and I'll shoot
you" as an initial response. This inevitably leads to a discussion of
the relative advantages and disadvantages of such an approach.
2. The concept
of analytical problem solving conflict resolution
The concept of
analytical problem solving conflict resolution was developed by John
Burton.(7) It can be readily translated into military language: for
example, the key elements of the approach are similar to those involved
in planning a military operation.
The approach assumes
that much conflict is predictable. If conflict can be predicted, appropriate
resources, training and responses can be planned.
3. The application
of the concept
Participants are
assisted to develop an inventory of potential conflict in peacekeeping
operations generally, and in the operation for which they are preparing
specifically. This involves the use of classical "brainstorming:" members
of the group identify as many types or areas of potential conflict as
possible and when the inventory has been completed, key types or areas
(or if the duration of the programme allows, all types and areas) are
considered.
The group is encouraged
to identify and explore options for eliminating, minimising or surviving
each identified source of conflict. This involves the identification
of appropriate resources, personal and interpersonal skills and support
mechanisms. The aim of the process is not simply to develop a list of
problems and possible solutions, but to give the participants practical
experiences in an analytical and (to use Burton's term) proventive(8)
approach to conflict resolution.
Conflict is identified
by participants as occurring essentially in three stages:
1. pre-departure
2. on mission
3. on return.
The research with
Australian Defence Forces has identified a relatively consistent inventory
of sources of conflict. The pre- and post-mission conflict most often
involves personal relationships and family. Many participants identify
the need for conflict resolution training to be given as soon after
the announcement of the mission as possible, and prior to their departure
from their families for briefing and training.
In some cases,
the Australian Army has provided conflict resolution training for defence
personnel and their husbands or wives (specifically when the whole family
will go on a posting), but has yet to provide training for whole families,
although this has been identified as a need.
A typical inventory
of family and personal conflict before and after the peacekeeping operation
would include:
FAMILY: PRE-DEPARTURE
lack of time/pressure to prepare prior to departure
separation from (sense of guilt/loss/abandonment)
conflicts related to departure (e.g. resentment)
problems with children (e.g. anger/resentment at departure)
problems with adolescents (e.g. anger/resentment at departure)
problems with partners (e.g. anger/resentment at departure)
explaining the work (e.g. the need to keep some things confidential)
explaining the dangers (e.g. feeling the need to minimise)
personal anxieties projected into the family
FAMILY: DURING
MISSION
residue of conflicts unresolved before departure
lack of ready communication with family during absence
conflicts occurring during absence
lack of close personal and emotional support
FAMILY: POST-RETURN
conflicts related to return (e.g. catching up, debriefing)
residue of conflicts unresolved before departure
lack of ready communication with family during absence
conflicts occurring during absence
personal anxieties projected into the family
Participants (whether
or not they been on peacekeeping missions previously) are readily able
to identify potential sources of conflict during a mission. These fall
into a number of broad categories. The result of a typical "brainstormed"
inventory might be:
STRESS
hostility (e.g., in attitude/manner/threats/rejection)
danger/perceived danger
enemies/being perceived as an enemy
uncertainty/unpredictability (e.g., how do I know when I'm at risk ?)
the "coiled spring" (stress leading to conflict leading to stress)
lack of close personal and emotional supports
ANXIETY
about self (e.g., physical, emotional, psychological well being)
about (absent/present) family
about situation (e.g., ability to cope)
UNCERTAINTY
unpredictability
uncertainty
lack of information
HOSTILITY
being the object of hostility (e.g., threatened, abused, insulted)
representing the object of hostility (e.g., the "other side", the UN)
feeling hostile to others (e.g., because of their behaviour)
reacting (how to respond to someone who appears hostile)
lack of anticipated gratitude/welcome
EXPECTATIONS
of situation (e.g., we will bring about peace)
of self (e.g., I will always cope/achieve/succeed)
of other Australian soldiers
of other soldiers (e.g., they will be as trained/disciplined as us)
by the Army of soldiers (e.g., no signs of "weakness")
DANGER
physical danger (e.g., facing someone with a gun)
unpredictable danger
the unidentifiable threat/enemy (how do I know where danger is ?)
being appropriately alert vs being overstressed
CONFUSION
within self
within the society
within the system
ISOLATION
lack of usual support systems
lack of usual informal/peer group/friend "debriefing" systems
in some cases, physical isolation
CULTURE
"the rules" (e.g., breaking them without knowing)
misunderstandings causing offence: of them, of self
unintended offence
language: not understanding,
working with limited English,
uncertainty as to understanding
frustration with inability to understand/make understood
culture shock
(moving from "tourist" into deprivation)
cultural values (e.g., being offended by behaviour)
responding/reacting to the unacceptable
(e.g., violence, bribery, corruption, treatment of women/children)
different styles (e.g., how do you know when someone is angry ?)
PHYSICAL SITUATION
discomfort
limited resources
climate
food
accommodation
tiredness/exhaustion
illness
VALUES
doing things personally believed to be wrong
allowing things to happen that personally believed to be wrong
not helping/intervening when possible (e.g., in local violence)
observing suffering (e.g., sense of inadequacy/guilt/powerlessness)
"THE SYSTEM"
getting things done
the way things are done/not done
frustration (e.g., delays, duplication, unclear command structure)
not knowing how to get things done (e.g., formal vs informal systems)
inefficient/corrupt systems
having to command subordinates whose level of competency is low
having to obey superiors whose level of competency is low
COMPETING DEMANDS
setting priorities
allocating time
inability to have personal time/space
CONFINEMENT
close living with others
lack of privacy/own time/own space
"minor irritations" (e.g., the personal habits of others)
physical restrictions
GROUP DYNAMICS
working in/with a team
task achievement and team maintenance
personal/professional differences within teams
POLITICS
having to implement policies personally disapproved of
concerns about political implications of actions
frustration with Australian politics/processes
frustration with UN politics/processes
frustration with local politics/processes
representing Australia/the UN
For each cause,
the following questions can be asked:
1. PREDICTION
HOW IS THIS TYPE
OF CONFLICT MOST LIKELY TO BE DEALT WITH ?
a. by the Army
b. by me
c. by the team
2. PREPARATION
WHAT PREPARATION
CAN BE DONE FOR THIS AREA OF CONFLICT ?
a. by the Army
b. by providing resources
c. by providing training
d. by me
e. by the team
3. PROVENTION
HOW CAN THIS AREA
OF CONFLICT BE MINIMISED ?
a. by the Army
b. by providing resources
c. by providing training
d. by me
e. by the team
4. RESPONSE
HOW CAN THIS TYPE
OF CONFLICT BEST BE RESPONDED TO WHEN IT OCCURS ?
a. by the Army
c. by me
d. by the team
5. RECOVERY
WHAT NEEDS TO
BE DONE AFTER CONFLICT OF THIS TYPE OCCURS ?
a. by the Army
d. by me
d. by the team
This approach
is based on an assumption that the participants can identify the potential
sources of conflict, can also identify effective responses, and are
more likely to learn principles of practical usefulness through participation
in a group problem-solving process than a formal instructional lecture.
It has been unusual
for participants to identify specifically intra-personal or intra-psychic
conflicts. This seems to result from what can be called a "culture of
competency", that is, an assumption by the defence forces, internalised
by most personnel, that they must be able to cope in any given situation
and that, even when they cannot, admission of a personal inadequacy
will in some way be penalised. This may raise serious questions regarding
psychological well-being in some cases, particularly where an individual
in a relatively isolated situation is experiencing distressing personal
emotions, but feels unable to discuss them.
Although this
is not specifically related to training in conflict resolution, the
training itself can highlight the potential effects of such intra-personal
conflict.
The training in
conflict resolution provided for Australian Defence Force personnel
has produced very positive responses from the personnel involved, both
after the training sessions and on their return to Australia. The training
has not sought to question the importance of conventional military training,
but to recognise and build on the skills the personnel have already
acquired.
It has sought
to be realistic, not attempting to offer an infallible formula by which
to resolve all conflict, but rather offering principles which, in practice,
will be likely to reduce most conflict. It also recognises some of the
contradictions inherent in the concept of military peacekeeping: for
example, that many military personnel do not wish to undertake what
are essentially policing roles, that readiness for active intervention
can lead to frustration in situations where passive monitoring is required,
that a hierarchical structure can make self-disclosing communication
difficult.
The training has
also sought to minimise any threat or discomfort arising from a reluctance
to discuss issues of emotion, perception and uncertainty. Consideration
has been given to providing training only to groups of approximately
equivalent ranks to eliminate barriers which can, and do, exist in regard
to self-disclosure to those who are not peers or to acknowledging possible
inadequacies to superiors or subordinates. This has not, in fact, been
done, mainly for logistical reasons.
Because conflict
resolution is not, and should not be presented as, anything like an
exact science or precise technology, it cannot be presented through
conventional instructional lectures. An interactive, participatory and
experiential approach is essential, making use of relevant examples
and scenarios.
The increasing
role of military personnel in peacekeeping operations and the probability
that, for the defence forces of most countries, a conventional war is
remote, requires reconsideration of the training provided for all military
personnel. For those preparing to undertake peacekeeping missions, or
who may inevitably do so in the course of their careers, training in
conflict resolution is essential.
Adequate research
and development needs to be undertaken in this area to ensure that training
programmes of the highest standard can be implemented. No training programme,
and no approach to conflict resolution is culturally neutral; effective
training must take account of the culture (both in its anthropological
sense and in the sense of the corporate or organisational culture) from
which participants come.
The success of,
and risks to, peacekeeping operations clearly relate to the ability
of personnel at all levels to respond effectively to conflict, whether
intra-personal or inter-personal, intra-group or inter-group, whether
conflict they are experiencing or conflict they are observing.
Top
of page
1 For a discussion
of the changing nature of military operations in peacekeeping, see Tom
Woodhouse and Oliver Ramsbotham: Terra Incognita: Here be Dragons. Peacekeeping
and conflict resolution in contemporary conflict: some relationships
considered. Paper presented at the INCORE Conference on Training and
Preparation of Peacekeepers, University of Ulster, 1996
2 United Nations:
Economic and Social Council Final Report of the in-depth evaluation
of peace-keeping operations: start-up phase, United Nations, New York:
1995: paragraph 89
3 Woodhouse and
Ramsbotham, 1996:17
4 Woodhouse and
Ramsbotham, 1996:17
5 General Clayton
Beattie, Canadian Army, in H. Wiseman (Ed) Peacekeeping: Appraisals
and Proposals, Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1983:209 quoted in Woodhouse
and Ramsbotham, 1996:21
6 This paper is
based on research undertaken with Australian Defence Forces preparing
to undertake peacekeeping operations. Participative Action Research
methodology was used, during which training sessions in conflict resolution
were provided for around 1,000 personnel in groups ranging in membership
from 4 to 200. These included all Australian peacekeeping forces preparing
for overseas missions during the past two years. Missions included routine
operations (for example, peace monitoring in the Middle East and mine-clearance
operations in south east Asia) and special operations (including troops
going to Rwanda and Bougainville). It included a major south Pacific
combined operation which involved defence personnel from Australia,
New Zealand, Fiji, Vanuatu and Tonga.
7 See John Burton
Conflict: Resolution and Provention Macmillan, London, 1990. For a practical
approach to applying Burton's theory, see Tillett, G. (1991) Resolving
conflict: a practical approach. South Melbourne: Sydney University Press
in association with Oxford University Press Australia.
8 Provention "does
not mean prevention, but rather the development and implementation of
processes which will encourage a conflict to emerge and be approached
creatively." Tillett, above cit.:142
Top
of page
Baxter, L.A. (1982)
Conflict management: an episodic approach. Small Group Behaviour 13:23-42
Borisoff, D. and
Victor, D. A. (1989) Conflict management: a communication skills approach
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
John Burton (1990)
Conflict: Resolution and Provention London, Macmillan
John Burton (1990)
Conflict: Human Needs Theory London, Macmillan
Canary, D.J. and
Spitzberg, B.H.(1997) Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions
of conflict strategies Human Communication Research 15:93-118
Canary, D.J. and
Spitzberg, B.H. (1989)A model of the perceived competence of conflict
strategies Human Communication Research 15: 630-649
Canary, D.J. and
Spitzberg, B.H. (1990) Attribution biases and associations between conflict
strategies and competence outcomes Communication Monographs 57:139-151
Fogg, R.W. (1985)
Dealing with conflict: a repertoire of creative, peaceful approaches
Journal of Conflict Resolution 29 (2):330-358.
Folger, J.P.,
Poole, M.S. and Stutman, R. K. (1993) Working through conflict: strategies
for relationships, groups, and organizations New York: Harper Collins
College Publishers.
Hare, A.P. (1985)
Social interaction as drama: applications from conflict resolution Beverly
Hills, California, Sage Publications
Hill, B. J. (1982)
An analysis of conflict resolution techniques from problem-solving workshops
to theory Journal of Conflict Resolution 26 (1):109-138
Porter, J.N. and
Taplin, R. (1987) Conflict and conflict resolution: a sociological introduction
with updated bibliography and theory section Lanham, Maryland: University
Press of America.
Pruitt, D.G. and
Carnevale, P.J. (1993) Negotiation in social conflict Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Ray, E.B. and
Ray, G. B. (1986) Teaching conflict management skills in corporate training:
a perspective taking approach Communication Education 35 (3):208-290.
Sandole, D.J.D.
and Sandole-Staroste, I. (Eds) (1987) Conflict management and problem
solving: interpersonal to international applications London: Frances
Pinter
Schultz, B. and
Anderson, J. (1984) Training in the management of conflict. A communication
theory perspective Small Group Behaviour 15 (3):333-348.
Sillars, A.L.
and Weisberg, J. (1987) Conflict as a social skill in M.E. Roloff and
G. R. Miller (Eds) Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication
research Beverly Hills, California: Sage
Stepsis, J.A.
(1974) Conflict resolution strategies in J.W. Pfeiffer and J.E. Jones
(Eds) The 1974 annual handbook for group facilitators La Jolla, California:
University Associates
Sternberg, R.J.
and Robson, D.M. (1987) Resolving interpersonal conflicts: an analysis
of stylistic consistency Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
52:794-812.
Sternberg, R.J.
and Soriano, L.J. (1984) Styles of conflict resolution Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 47:115-126
Tillett, G. (1991)
Resolving conflict: a practical approach South Melbourne: Sydney University
Press in association with Oxford University Press Australia
Vayrynen, R (Ed)
(1991) New Directions in Conflict Theory: Conflict Resolution and Conflict
Transformation London: Sage
Wareheime, R.G.
(1980) Conflict management training: a cognitive/behavioral approach
Group and Organization Studies 5 (4):467-476.
Weiss-Wik, S.
(1983) Enhancing negotiators' successfulness: self-help books and related
empirical research Journal of Conflict Resolution 27 (4):706-73
Woodhouse, T.
and Ramsbotham, O (1996) Terra Incognita: Here be Dragons. Peacekeeping
and conflict resolution in contemporary conflict: some relationships
considered. Paper presented at the INCORE Conference on Training and
Preparation of Peacekeepers, University of Ulster, June, 1996
Woodhouse, T.
and Ramsbotham, O (1996) Humanitarian Intervention in Contemporary Conflict:
A Reconceptualization Cambridge: Polity Press
