CONFLICT RESOLUTION CONSORTIUM NEWSLETTER February, 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS Upcoming Events New Member Recruitment Project Updates Justice Without Violence Environmental Problem Solving Intractable Conflict Small Grant and Seminar Reports Conflict Resolution in Eastern Europe Human Rights in Guatemala Conflict Resolution Theory and the Legislative Process: A Case Study of the 1990 and 1991 Civil Rights Acts Cross-Cultural Water Conflict Resolution Cooperative Natural Resource Dispute Resolution Fellowship and Job Announcements New Working Papers Available UPCOMING EVENTS Policy Sciences Visiting Speaker Charles Herrick, Senior Advisor to the Chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality will present a talk on "Educating Policymakers" on Thursday, February 20, from 12:00 - 2:00 in CIRES conference room 356. Herrick was previously a Senior Analyst at NOAA and served as the Assistant Director of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. Haim Gordon Visit Israeli Peace Activist, Educator, and Philosopher, Haim Gordon, will be visiting CU from February 25 - 27. He will give a talk for the Consortium on The Gaza Strip, A Forgotten Ghetto of the World" from 4:00-5:30, February 26, in UMC 425. Gordon has been working closely with Palestinians and other leaders in an effort to remedy human rights abuses and eventually bring peace to the Gaza and the wider Mideast region. Gordon will also speak to the Kitteredge Honors program on Prospects for Peace in the Middle East on Thursday evening, February 22. Both talks are open to interested faculty and students. For the exact time and location of the Kitteredge talk, call Laurie McNown at the Kitteredge Honors program, 492-7871. Peace Studies Association Conference The Peace Studies Association will be holding its fourth annual meeting in Boulder February 27-March 1, 1992. The Conference theme is Conflict and Change in the 1990s: Redefining Power, Democracy, and Development. The plenary and paper sessions at the annual meeting will address conflict and change occurring both domestically and internationally, including new developments in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, multiculturalism and diversity, the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, the environment and development, women and peace, and nonviolent social movements. For registration information, contact the PSA office at 492-7718. Workshop on Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Law School Curriculum The University of Colorado School of Law will present a workshop on Friday, March 13, 1992 from 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. at the Law School. The workshop will explore ways in which methods of alternative dispute resolution can best be integrated into the law school curriculum. The workshop will be led by two recognized leaders in the ADR field, Professor Frank Sander of the Harvard Law School and Professor Leonard Riskin of the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law. The workshop is open to academicians and legal professionals who have an interest in ADR. There is no charge but reservations are necessary. If you would like to attend, or need further information, please contact Professor Mark Loewenstein at 492-8048. Global Change Conference The University of Colorado Global Change and Environmental Quality program will hold its second symposium, April 13 and 14, 1992, on the University of Colorado-Denver campus. The principal organizers of this University-wide symposium are Professors Bill Riebsame, of the UC-B Department of Geography and Lloyd Burton, at the UC-D Graduate School of Public Affairs. While the format and program for the symposium are still being formulated, the organizers anticipate that GCEQ research award recipients will make presentations about their work. Dialogue between researchers and public policy makers in local, state, and federal agencies concerned with environmental issues will be encouraged. More details will be available from the organizers or from the Consortium office within the next few weeks. NEW MEMBER RECRUITMENT The Consortium is currently recruiting new members with an interest in conflict resolution, especially those with an interest in international, environmental, or public policy conflict, intractable conflict of any sort (racial, ethnic, gender, etc.) or ADR (alternative dispute resolution) processes. University membership is free and open to all faculty, graduate students and staff of any of the four CU campuses. Persons from outside CU are eligible to join the Consortium as Affiliates. Members receive CRC mailings (newsletters and other information), are invited to participate in all CRC programs (seminars, theory- building programs, workshops, etc.) and all University members are eligible to apply for small grants through the annual small grant competition. Call Heidi or Guy Burgess at 492-1635 for information. PROJECT UPDATES Justice Without Violence Program Holds Synthesis Conference The Justice Without Violence Project team held an all-day "Synthesis Conference" in October 1991, to present their papers and compare findings. The papers, being compiled into a book on Justice Without Violence, illustrate a wide variety of ways in which people who believe themselves to be subordinate and aggrieved can seek remedies to injustice without resorting to violence. While some of the cases included in this project describe efforts at traditional nonviolent direct action, many other approaches are described as well. Thus, the picture being drawn is multifaceted and complex and somewhat different from much of the nonviolence literature and justice literature which has preceded it. Currently included are case studies of Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, China, Nicaragua, South Africa, Central and Southern Africa, and India, as well as several theoretical papers. Although the papers cover a wide diversity of situations, and reflect a variety of research methods, a surprising number of commonalities between cases were found. While the findings are too preliminary and case-specific to allow generalization, we consider these common factors to be variables worth investigating in further empirical studies. Areas of commonality include: contextual factors, characteristics of the dominant and subordinate groups, strategy and tactics of the subordinate group, and dominant group response. Contextual factors examined include: a) the nature of the injustice, b) the history of the region, c) the culture and belief systems of the groups in opposition, d) the sources of government or dominant group power, e) structural factors influencing dominant or subordinate group's options, and f) the presence and nature of any outside intervention or influence in the conflict. Of particular interest is the apparent lack of importance of history of the region and the greater importance of culture and belief systems in determining whether violent or nonviolent strategies are chosen. Theoretically, one would expect that nations or cultures with a strong history of violence would tend to continue to use violence in their current struggles, while cultures with a history of successful nonviolence might be expected to use that approach more often. One might also expect that highly polarized and escalated conflicts, such as those involving the Palestinians, would be more likely to result in violent struggles than ones which were more latent or less escalated. However, our cases do not tend to support either of the above contentions. Zaven Arabajan, a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, contributed a paper to the Justice Without Violence Project in May, 1991 (CRC Working Paper #91-10). In his essay, he wrote, "Traditionally, beginning in the Middle Ages, social conflicts and contradictions in Russia were solved by violence and were accompanied by chaos and bloodshed." The current socio-economic and political upheavals are not unprecedented, he said, but rather have occurred (in other forms for other reasons) several times before in Russian history. Therefore, one would expect the Soviet people to again turn to violence to achieve their political goals. While violence has occurred, especially in the Southern republics where it has been severe, Arabajan wrote, in May 1991, that the Soviet populace is increasingly opposed to the use of violence to achieve political ends. According to Arabajan, increasing numbers of people have been turning to demonstrations, strikes, and other nonviolent alternatives to force the government to change its policies, structure, and now (after Arabajan wrote his paper), the identity of the Soviet Union itself. These approaches to justice conflicts are far different from those used in the past. Similarly, the history of violence and polarized conflict is very prevalent in the Middle East. Further, according to Amin Kazak, who wrote a paper on the Intifada (CRC WP #91-15), nonviolence is viewed as a "Western idea" and is largely rejected for that reason. Nevertheless, the Intifada has chosen to use largely nonviolent tactics in its struggle with Israel in recent years. Although one case study (done by Joel Edelstein on Eastern Europe) did find historical style of governance to be important, most of the other cases found that current culture and belief systems were more important than history in determining response to injustice. In addition to contextual factors, other variables that often seemed important to the outcome were the characteristics of the dominant group, especially the sources of the dominant group's power. Items of particular importance within this category include: a) the socio-economic condition of the country, b) the political competence of the regime, c) the legitimacy of the regime, and d) the ability of the regime to enforce sanctions to maintain power. For example, the regimes of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union had been suffering from serious socio-economic problems for a number of years, significantly diminishing the regimes' legitimacy by 1989. In some cases (for instance Poland, according to Edelstein, and the Soviet Union, according to Arabajan), the political competence of the regime was also low. This combined with the loss of ability to enforce sanctions (brought on by the refusal of the Soviets to intervene) and the governments of Eastern Europe, and later the Soviet Union itself, fell quickly. However, the Chinese regime was able to maintain power, apparently because of the much higher legitimacy of the ruling elite, derived largely from socio-economic success and, perhaps, higher political competence. Another important variable, named by Paul Wehr, but discussed in all the chapters, is the "challenge strategy mix." This is the particular combination or mixture of strategies that subordinate or "challenge groups" use to alter the power structure. Rather than using one strategy alone, in most cases the challenging groups used a mixture of strategies which interacted to produce (or in some cases failed to produce) change. Although strategies can be grouped in any number of ways, we chose to use a typology based on Kenneth Boulding's theory of power. According to Boulding, three primary types of strategies exist-- threats, exchange, and love. While love has been largely ignored in the academic literature on power and conflict, Boulding argues that it is the most significant source of power, as it underlies legitimacy. "Without some sort of legitimacy, neither threat power nor economic [i.e., exchange] power can be realized in any large degree" (Boulding, Three Faces of Power, p. 109). This corresponds to Gene Sharp's notion of power being based on consent: "The exercise of power depends on the consent of the ruled who, by withdrawing that consent, can control and even destroy the power of their opponent" (Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action. Part One: Power and Struggle, p. 4). According to Wehr, "the more balanced the mix of power strategies, the more successful will the challengers be in both achieving justice and minimizing violence. There must be, in a strategic mix, sufficient threat to escalate change-producing conflict. That threat, however, need not take the form of violent action, though it may. On the other hand, the love or integrative strategy cannot be too associative or neither conflict nor purposive change will occur. The exchange (read negotiation in its various forms) in the mix is the means by which threat and integration are kept at sufficiently moderate levels to permit movement toward justice- oriented change" (Wehr, CRC WP #91-13). While challenge groups routinely mix strategies, Wehr suggests that certain conditions may be necessary for the right threat/sanction - exchange - conciliation mix to emerge. In the Nicaraguan case, Wehr identifies institutional, normative, and experiential factors which inhibited violence and led to a beneficial balance between the challenge strategy types. In his final analysis, Wehr suggests that exchange strategies are particularly important: "It is in the exchange process that threat reduction and conciliation enhancement are actively pursued. As conflictants communicate, clarify positions and interests, and trade concessions, threat [and sanctions] are reduced and cordiality may give way to genuine mutual respect." In his conclusion Wehr suggests that other challenge groups use similar approaches, mixing nonviolent sanctions and threat, negotiation and third-party process, together with an enhancement of the integrative component to achieve their goals. "What appears to be most essential," Wehr concludes, "is the ability of justice conflictants to be flexible and diligent in using available conflict-moderating resources and to create them where they do not exist." Environmental Problem-Solving Program Synthesis Conference The Environmental Problem-Solving team also held a Synthesis Conference in December, 1991. At that time project participants discussed draft papers dealing with the way in which Californians have responded to the current drought. While California is unique in many respects, their drought exemplifies the type of problem likely to arise repeatedly in the arid West should global warming occur. Even without warming, drought is likely to continue to be a problem as the Western U.S. population grows, further stretching limited water supplies. Using the incremental approach, this working group is examining institutional responses to the California drought to determine what conflict resolution mechanisms worked well and which did not. Each team member has prepared a chapter on a different aspect of the policy-making process used in drought response: economic responses, administrative and political responses, legal responses, technical responses, and overall conflict resolution responses. They then plan to consider possible application of the findings to other water management issues and for a better understanding of the overall environmental problem-solving process. For example, in his paper (CRC WP #92-2), Lloyd Burton focused on three questions: 1) how the drought affected levels of user conflict, 2) what theoretical perspectives best explain why conflicts took the form they did, and 3) what lessons can be learned regarding future institutional management of common pool resources from the California experience. The level of user conflict varied greatly, Burton found, from one strata of an institution to the next. At the highest tier, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), conflict incidence increased quickly as water availability decreased. The incidence of water rights complaints filed with the Water Rights Division of the SWRCB more than tripled during the 1976-77 drought, and more than doubled during 1987-90. Division case backlogs and response time also increased sharply as a result of the increased complaint load. In sum, Burton observes, the first tier water dispute- settling institutions in California are as stressed in drought situations as is the water supply itself. However, this was not true at lower institutional levels where disputes were nearly absent. This included major water distributors--the State Water Project, the Metropolitan Water District, and the Central Valley Project, for instance, as well as smaller municipal water districts and end users. Burton attributes this finding to a "cooperative spirit and grudging good will" of municipal water users, who conserved, on average, about 36% more surface water than they were asked to save. However, Burton observed, "In keeping with the public administration maxim that 'No good deed goes unpunished', their reward for this collective self- sacrifice in most jurisdictions was a steep increase in retail water rates" (as water districts had to make up lost revenues from falling sales by increasing the price per unit of water). Burton concludes that municipal water providers are "rapidly expending one of their most valuable assets: voluntary constituent self- sacrifice." This situation calls for immediate fundamental restructuring of water service rate-making policy, Burton contends. "If the Tier 3 [final] distributors operated under an incentive system which rewarded conservation instead of the unending pursuit of additional water supplies, they could go a long way toward meeting future water demand without having to rely so heavily on either new storage construction or agricultural water buy-outs." If such changes are not made, Burton argues, "the precious but eminently exhaustible sense of collective forbearance among their constituents may well be lost. And like salt water intrusion into an overdrafted coastal aquifer, the political mood that replaces that cooperative spirit will have a most unpleasant flavor." Burton also suggests that the method of making water allocation decisions at the top of the distribution system must be altered. The State Water Resources Control Board cannot effectively handle the disputes that it is faced with during drought years. One solution might be to partially decentralize its functions, putting complaint investigators throughout the state, rather than concentration in Sacramento (as is now the case). Another important change, Burton asserts, would be to implement statewide regional conjunctive use regulations which would integrate the management of surface and groundwater resources. (Right now, much of California's groundwater remains largely unregulated and many groundwater basins are in overdraft throughout the state.) Burton acknowledges such changes will be very difficult to make, but suggests negotiators start with the agreement that in the future, "no one region of the state can or should be sacrificed, either environmentally or economically, for the sake of another." In another paper, economist Chuck Howe examines the use of water banks in California and elsewhere in the West to help alter the distribution of water in response to drought. In general he finds water banks to be beneficial, although each of the systems he studied had some shortcomings. Usually these shortcomings involved limitations--either on who may use the water bank, or what the price of water may be. "As long as water banks are constrained in their operation from finding a market price, and buyers and sellers are limited in their participation," Howe concludes, "they will not function as well as they might." Howe also suggests a redefinition of water rights to allow rights to be transferred on a rental or purchase basis with minimal legal problems, as has been done in the Northern Colorado Water Conservation District or the Snake River Water Bank where legislation has been enacted to facilitate water transfers. If implemented properly, however, Howe believes water banks are sufficiently useful that serious consideration should be given to implementing such banks permanently, not just in times of drought. Further, the possibility of instituting interstate water banks needs to be given more consideration. Howe also recommends that the "general public decision-making process be opened up to the input of objective data, research, and analysis." All too often, he contends, water allocation decisions are made for political, engineering, or special interest reasons that would not hold up to objective analysis. In his paper, Larry MacDonnell reviews the legal mechanisms that California has used for allocating water shortages. He compares the allocation system of the Central Valley Project to that of the State Water Project--by far the two biggest distributors of water in California. While both projects are bound by contractual obligations to deliver water to a wide variety of users, the Central Valley Project has more flexibility in its legal commitments. In general, the Bureau of Reclamation, which administers the CVP, calculates the available supply of water to be allocated each year. They then decide what cutbacks to make to each contractor. The contractors and users have a very limited role in this process. Water allocation choices are much more clearly defined in the contracts of the State Water Project, which gives a clear preference to the protection of urban users over agricultural users. Drought shortages have been exacerbated by the fact that the State Water Project has a firm annual yield of 2.4 million acre feet, but has entered into thirty long-term contracts providing for a maximum delivery of 4.2 million acre feet! Further stress was caused by the fact that the SWP made full allocations to its users for the first several years of the drought, and then was forced to drastically curtail deliveries in 1991 as a result of past excessive use. MacDonnell agrees with Howe that the most important innovative response California has made to the drought is the implementation of a water bank. Unlike the traditional administrative decision- making process, the water bank is an example of a more market-based approach, which MacDonnell believes will become more prevalent in the future. One problem with market-based approaches, however, is that they tend to favor urban and industrial uses over agricultural and environmental uses. "More explicit requirements may have to be placed on other users to ensure adequate protection of [environmental] values during drought, MacDonnell contends. Other project papers concerned the use of computer models to assist in water allocation and reallocation decisions, other technical approaches to mitigating drought impacts, and an overview of the conflict resolution implications of all of these various approaches taken together. These papers will be reviewed in a later Conflict Resolution Consortium Newsletter. Intractable Conflict Program Update This fall the Intractable Conflict Program held two public seminars and several smaller working group meetings. The first of these was a panel discussion in which working group participants discussed their views on the nature of intractable conflict and the various ways of dealing with it. Under debate were the primary issues that the working group has been pondering for the better part of a year: What do we mean by constructive confrontation? What are destructive activities? What can first parties do to achieve social change in intractable conflicts? Is violence sometimes justifiable? Is it useful? What role can (should) third parties play? A summary of this discussion is given below: Intractable Conflict and Constructive Confrontation - Panel Discussion with Guy and Heidi Burgess, CRC Co-Directors, Paul Wehr, Professor of Sociology, UC-B, Emily Calhoun, Professor, of Law, UC-B, and Linda Jourgensen, former Boulder Mayor and County Commissioner. Guy Burgess opened the seminar by describing the activities and purposes of the Intractable Conflict Working Group. The failure of traditional conflict resolution models to address intractable conflicts prompted the group's formation. The working group, which has been meeting since early 1991, has been investigating the nature of intractable conflicts and debating alternative ways of handling such conflicts--on the part of participants and third parties (such as police, or University administrators). A variety of ideas have been explored, but so far, the only one accepted by all members of the group is that these conflicts are difficult--and challenging--for those who become involved in them. Beyond that, the participants in the working group--and this seminar--each have very different views on the nature of these conflicts and what should be done by whom to make these conflicts "constructive." Heidi Burgess provided an overview of a paper she and Guy have written on intractable conflict and constructive confrontation. The characteristics distinguishing intractable conflicts from others include: 1) deep-rooted nature, 2) action imperative (individuals feel compelled to act upon their convictions), 3) mass (rather than individual) participation, and 4) short-term non- resolvability. Participants include initiators (1st parties), counter-activists (2nd parties), intervenors or mediators (3rd parties), and bystanders (4th parties). Resolution of these conflicts has typically followed the approaches of either negotiation or intentional escalation. Negotiations rarely resolve intractable conflicts and tend to sweep the underlying problems under the rug. Conversely, the path of intentional escalation tends to provoke anger and exacerbate differences. Where the respective power levels of the parties are relatively equal, escalation typically results in a stalemate. But, where one party possesses a power advantage, repression is the common result. As an alternative to these two paths, Dr. Burgess offered the following guidelines for constructive confrontation: understanding, and where possible, limiting the escalation process, planning responses to inflammatory provocations, abstaining from intentionally humiliating opponents, and demonstrating trust, goodwill and empathy. These and other techniques will not prevent or resolve conflict, nor will they eliminate differences of opinion. But such techniques (which might be referred to as methods for "fighting fair and fighting smart") allow activists to successfully persuade others of the correctness of their views without so angering bystanders or opponents that they actually loose ground in their effort to persuade. Paul Wehr began his presentation with observations about the persistence of intractable conflict. Noting the continued presence of race discrimination thirty years after the Civil Rights marches, he suggested that conflicts surrounding issues of ethnic identity are particularly intractable. Professor Wehr examined the benefits of confrontation from the perspective of an activist. Groups gain unity and solidarity in confronting common opponents. Conflicts provide dramatizations of the causes for which groups fight, and provide a release for the emotional aspects of their fight. Conflicts assist leaders in defining the roles they play within organizations and provide a test for measuring the commitment of a group's membership. In this regard, conflicts are tremendously helpful in the recruitment and maintenance of activist organizations. Thus, constructive confrontation must either provide for the fulfillment of these goals or offer results which make them less important. Professor Wehr suggested analyzing confrontation as a dramatic performance. In so doing, one can better evaluate the situation and, perhaps, rewrite the 'script' to avoid the more negative aspects. The analogy between plays and conflicts is extensive: both occur on a stage, both can be seen to follow a script, both comprise a number of actors fulfilling particular roles, both are typically performed in the presence of an audience, and, finally, both can be rehearsed. Professor Wehr implied that alterations in the script and rehearsals can help to make confrontations constructive, rather than destructive, in some cases. One of the persistent debates among the members of the Intractable Conflict Working Group is what one means by 'constructive' as opposed to 'destructive' confrontation. Emily Calhoun took issue with some of the Burgesses' assumptions about 'constructive confrontation', and hence, with the suggestion that one could formulate guidelines for achieving such an effect. In their paper, the Burgesses imply long-term solutions are superior to short-term ones, expanded participation is better than limited participation, debating issues on the merits is superior to debating about underlying emotions, and that violence is undesirable. "While such assumptions may be supportable," Calhoun said, "others would certainly argue in favor of the utility of violence and emotionalism." An examination of the Civil Rights Movement, she said, supports the theory that threats of violence, such as those posed by Stokely Carmichael, provided an expanded power base from which Martin Luther King was able to push President Johnson for reform. By removing the factors of violence and emotion, the process inherently favors the status quo. Also, Calhoun also felt that the Burgesses' assumptions reflected a managerial world view--which necessarily raises the question of who should control the process. Professor Calhoun proceeded to describe one of her student's work on the Boulder History Project examining the conflict over abortion rights in Boulder. (One aspect of this conflict involved the mediation of a "buffer zone ordinance" which provided a spacial separation between clients and protestors at a local abortion clinic.) Calhoun noted that, although both groups generally liked the mediation process that was employed, they approached the negotiations with different agendas. The pro-life participants viewed the process as an opportunity to exchange information while the pro-choice participants sought an opportunity to voice their views and obtain `space'. The constructive aspects of the process included: the opportunity of both sides to demonstrate (to the other) that they were not `evil', the opportunity to develop internal unity and cohesion, and the opportunity to gain insights into the mentality of their opponents. Some, however, thought the process a waste of time, noting that they already acknowledged the `humanity' of their opponents. Both sides acknowledged that the process left existing power levels unchanged. The process failed to change anyone's mind, but did, however, lead to a municipal ordinance providing for a buffer zone at abortion facilities. Professor Calhoun concluded her remarks, noting that what is constructive at one point is not necessarily so at another. For this reason, universal guidelines are doubtful. Ms. Jourgensen focused her remarks on the goals of mediation. She noted that, in the Boulder program, mediators attempt to address expectations and behaviors rather than values. Thus, when the municipal government entered the abortion protest controversy as mediators, they were not attempting to change the values any of the participants held. Rather, they focused their efforts upon achieving a compromise in behaviors the participants were willing to accept. Ms. Jourgensen proceeded to compare the recent Operation Rescue activities in Wichita with past anti-abortion activities in Boulder. The principal differences involved the level of planning on the part of city authorities. In Boulder, the protest activities were rehearsed prior to the actual demonstration. Police prepared for the protest by bringing wheelchairs to facilitate the transportation of protestors and the abortion facility cooperated by not having any actual abortions scheduled during the time of the protest. Another significant difference was the lack of outside agitators in the Boulder protest. Wichita was inundated with 25,000 demonstrators from outside their community. Ms. Jourgensen concluded her remarks with the question of whether the difference in protests was attributable to the nature of the communities involved--Wichita, a heartland community is very different from the strongly liberal community of Boulder. Luis Sfeir-Younis Visit The second Intractable Conflict presentation was made by visiting Sociologist Luis Sfeir-Younis from the Intergroup Relations and Conflict Program at the University of Michigan. Sfeir-Younis developed and taught a highly innovative, experiential course on intergroup relations and conflict at Michigan. This course has been taken by many hundreds of students each semester and has been very successful, though according to Sfeir-Younis, very difficult and demanding to teach. Sfeir-Younis met in a small group session with the Intractable Conflict Working group, where he described, in detail, the course and the administrative issues regarding its development. The course was developed five years ago in response to a series of serious racial incidents which were followed by demonstrations and sit-ins. Diversity, racism, and the recruitment and retention of students and faculty of color all became issues. The Program on Conflict Management Alternatives requested and received a grant to develop a course on diversity to help students better understand intergroup issues and deal with these conflicts in a constructive way. The Intergroup Conflict and Relations program was the result. The purpose of the intergroup conflict course is to teach students the major theoretical and empirical frameworks for understanding and identifying problems in intergroup relations and then helping them develop skills for dealing with conflict situations. The course presents a systematic analysis of the historical and structural origins of intergroup conflicts. It then seeks to advance students' understanding of alternative ways to resolve such conflicts in cooperative, just, and peaceful ways. "Resolution of conflicts which do not bring about a more equitable distribution of resources and greater social justice," Sfeir-Younis argues, "will not be long-lasting, and will probably be enforced with much suffering and oppression." Therefore, Sfeir-Younis visualized a triangular relationship between social conflict, values of justice and equity, and mechanisms for peaceful resolutions of conflict. None can exist without the other, and each reinforces the other for successful social change. The course is innovative, not only in its substance, but also in its process. In addition to readings, lectures and discussions, students also engage in a number of experiential exercises (simulations, role-plays, and games) which supplement their traditional forms of learning. Students are also asked to keep journals in which they record their reactions to ideas presented in class and readings, or reactions to the games they experience. Finally, students participate in a small dialogue groups in which they meet face-to-face with students of different backgrounds and culture to talk about their commonalities and differences. These groups meet outside of class two hours a week for five weeks. Students are then required to write a paper reflecting on their experience in the dialogue groups. Types of dialogue groups students may choose include: Men and Women, Whites and Students of Color, White Women and Women of Color, Christian and Jews, African- Americans and Jews, and Heterosexuals and Persons of Other Sexual Orientations. The dialogue groups have student-facilitators who are trained in leading such groups. While some groups have a pre- set agenda, others collectively decide the issues to discuss as the group develops. A final innovation is multi-cultural evaluation criteria. Sfeir- Younis points out that different cultural groups have different modes of learning and different ways of exhibiting what they have learned. Therefore, one standard form of evaluation or grading may put some cultural groups at a serious disadvantage. To get around this problem, he evaluates learning in a variety of ways: through evaluation of journals and assignments, quizzes, a group project, participation and attendance, and the term paper on the dialogue group. In addition to discussing this course in detail with the Intractable Working Group, Sfeir Younis presented a more general overview of his views of multiculturalism and diversity in a larger public seminar later in the day. Race, Class, and Sex: Teaching About Intractable Conflict in the Classroom A Seminar by Luis Sfeir-Younis, Intergroup Relations and Conflict Program, University of Michigan. Co-sponsored by the Conflict Resolution Consortium, The Department of Sociology, and the Center for the Study of Race and Ethnicity. Funds provided by IMPART. Dr. Sfeir-Younis began his remarks with an overview of the means by which a multicultural academic environment may be achieved. Prerequisites are new ways of teaching (designing curriculum, defining roles) and changes in the attitudes of teachers and students to promote awareness and recognition of cultural experiences. To achieve these changes, a new set of norms, values, protocols, and ground rules are necessary. In essence, development of a truly multicultural environment requires the creation of an interim `meta-culture,' in which an individual may affirm his or her own cultural roots but, at the same time, recognize the validity of other cultures and values. Dr. Sfeir-Younis proceeded to describe four stages en route to multiculturalism (away from monoculturalism): (1) Recognition and acceptance of the core values of a subject. A body of knowledge exists which cannot and should not be compromised. Sfeir-Younis criticized post-modernist theory for its blind affirmance of all ideas, whether valid or not. (2) Commitment to the elimination of barriers and oppression. During this period, institutions must (a) identify acts of discrimination in language and institutions, and (b) confront the dominant groups to make them aware of their privileges and show them that these privileges are at the expense of others. Dr. Sfeir-Younis dubbed this phase of evolution, the "anti-...ism" stage. (3) Faculty member sensitivity to the 'silences' in classrooms that reflect discomfort. Faculty must investigate grade differentials among students from different cultures and design evaluation techniques that reflect diversity. (4) Incorporation of multi-cultural pedagogy in the classroom. New knowledge and perspectives within a discipline will emerge (and be enhanced) if given the opportunity. Students will develop multi- cultural skills and create new world visions. Achievement of these goals requires tremendous commitment on the part of the University community. Multiculturalism must be a primary mission. Failure to follow these steps will lead to increasing conflict in the classroom. Dr. Sfeir-Younis suggested that a truly multi-cultural world will be radically different. Consequently, individuals must serve as a bridge toward changing realities - living within one culture and yet fully participating in another. Following these brief remarks, Dr. Sfeir-Younis responded to a number of comments and questions. Topics discussed included: the world-wide absence of cultures reflecting women's values and concerns, the challenge of a multicultural existence, definitions of 'culture,' different modes of thinking (reflected in different cultures), the need to redress discrimination, and techniques for the classroom which promote diversity. Small Grant and Seminar Reports Conflict Resolution in Eastern Europe Presentation by Bernard Mayer, CDR Associates December 4, 1991 Mayer reported on CDR's conflict resolution training programs in Eastern Europe. As part of a consortium of conflict resolution providers from across the U.S., CDR was asked to provide training for middle and high-level administrators in labor/management, environmental, and educational settings in Poland, Hungary, and the Soviet Union (which was still the USSR when CDR was there and when this talk was given). They found the task to be extremely difficult, Mayer said, but highly worthwhile. Negotiation and mediation were entirely new concepts to the Eastern Europeans. Formerly, most people had known only how to acquiesce or rebel. They knew how to build a movement, but not how to work out practical, workable policies. So the skill training had to start at a very basic level. CDR approached the problem with three objectives. First was to introduce the culture of negotiation and the concept of a win-win solution. These were new concepts to the Eastern Europeans. Previously "compromise" and "negotiation" were considered evil. People got their needs met by building power as they could, then rattling their swords, and seeing what they got. They did not try anything resembling cooperative problem solving. The second objective was to give the trainees basic ADR skills-- negotiation, mediation, facilitation, and training techniques--so that they could then go out themselves and train others in the cooperative problem-solving processes they had just learned. The third goal was to create self-sustaining, autonomous centers to teach and use these skills. A number of concepts were especially difficult to transfer from our culture to theirs. The basic idea of mediation was one example. Whenever people were asked to help solve problems in either Poland or Hungary, the "helper" acted as an arbitrator. They made the decision, or they told the others what they should do. The idea of a process-person, a person who helps others come to their own decision was totally foreign. Another problem was the lack of credible neutrals. No one is seen to be neutral, and no one is trusted. Everyone carries too much baggage from past roles and responsibilities. But this is a surmountable problem--they even have mandatory labor mediation now in Poland. Another problem was the idea of negotiating from a position of equality. People were always trying to pull power-plays on the other side, or they tried to move disputes up the bureaucratic ladder. In Hungary and the former Soviet Union CDR used the classic exercise where two people are asked to resolve a dispute about dividing up an orange. Instead of figuring how to resolve it themselves, they tried to decide how they would present the problem to their boss so he or she could decide! A third problem was getting people to see things in terms of interests instead of values. "Values are everywhere," Mayer said. Everything is framed in terms of right and wrong. Everything is a moral issue. In Hungary, they also had to battle a fundamental belief that problems can't be solved. Hungarians are great adapters, Mayer said. "They say okay to everyone and everything. They let the Russians take over. But then they took as much as they could, under the table. They have a history of getting what they want by manipulating, not by facing problems head on." In contrast, "the Poles feel that they won their freedom head on and paved the way for the rest of Eastern Europe to follow. This has given them a wonderful sense of empowerment." Despite a desperately troubled economy, the Poles are optimistic. "They think they'll make it." Hungary's economy is much sounder, but they are very pessimistic about the future. Both cultures lacked faith in procedural agreements (agreements on a process to solve a substantive dispute). They want all agreements to be immediate since they have no faith that promises for the future will work. They also don't believe in rules. No one follows rules, you just get away with what you can. But this diminishes security, since you can't trust that others will follow rules or agreements either. Legitimacy of law, Mayer said, is a new concept in Eastern Europe. This makes it extremely hard to reach agreements. It also makes negotiation difficult because there is no rights system to fall back on. You can't have a BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) without a rights-based dispute resolution system. Ideas which did transfer well were how to move from positions to interests and dividing conflicts into components, dealing with emotions first. This the Eastern Europeans understood easily and were able to do well. Eventually most of the ideas were transferred successfully and the reaction was very positive. Those trained found the experience very valuable, and many have gone on to train others. Several autonomous conflict resolution centers have been set up, providing both service and training in ADR skills. One danger in this process was the possibility of what Mayer called "trainer imperialism"--believing the trainers or their (our) culture had all the answers and insisting that the Eastern Europeans adapt to our way of doing things. CDR tried hard not to do this. They always had at least one person from the host country on the training team and worked very hard with this person and others to adapt the substance and the process of their training to match the recipient needs and culture. "The training was a cultural negotiation on both sides," Mayer said, and they adapted as best they could to the host culture, while still providing new skills and ideas were possible and appropriate. Human Rights in Guatemala Carmen Camey Rodriguez de Casta¤eda, Founding Member, Guatemalan Human Rights Commission Carmen Camey Rodriguez de Casta¤eda is a member of the Guatemalan Human Rights Commission, a non-governmental organization fighting serious violations of human rights perpetrated by Guatemalan internal security forces. Working in exile, with offices in Costa Rica, Madrid, Geneva, Vancouver, and Mexico City, the Commission is but one of several non-governmental organizations trying to help displaced persons forced into external exile, internal (Guatemalan) model villages which look a lot like concentration camps, and the "disappeared"--victims of extra-judicial executions, and other gross violations of human rights. In the Guatemalan case, human rights abuses are closely tied to the longstanding civil war, which has enabled government security forces to justify their actions based upon counter-insurgency imperatives. For Se¤ora Rodriguez de Casta¤eda, the fact that many people seem to have at least partially accepted this rationale is reflected in the complaints of mothers whose sons have been victims. "Mothers usually protest that their sons were not in any way involved in the insurgency," she observed, "with the unspoken implication that their fate would have been justified had they been so involved." However, she argues, "people must recognize that Civil War does not give governments the right to violate fundamental rights." Se¤ora Rodriguez de Casta¤eda went on to describe the many non- governmental organizations involved with the human rights struggle, including organizations such as Amnesty International, SOS Torture, the International Federation of the Rights of Man and her own Guatemalan Human Rights Commission. While much of the movement has been forced underground by government repression, low-key, internal organizations made up of families of detained and disappeared persons are also making important contributions. These organizations do have an impact, she asserted, and over the long term, she said, they would succeed. Pressures from such organizations were at least partially responsible for the recent transition to a nominally "democratic" government though, unfortunately, this government has not been able or is unwilling to stop the human rights violations in the country. Her account of ongoing negotiations between the insurgents and the government was more positive, however. Her conclusion was that the techniques of nonviolent, non-governmental resistance would eventually prevail. "But, they still need all of the support that they can get from around the world." Conflict Resolution Theory and the Legislative Process: A Case Study of the 1990 and 1991 Civil Rights Acts A Report on Small Grant Research by Rita Kummer, Dec. 5, 1991 Kummer, analyzing the applicability of conflict resolution theory to the legislative process, examined the negotiation process employed by members of Congress and others during consideration of the 1990 and 1991 Civil Rights Acts. The study interrogated the applicability of two dispute resolution models to the legislative process--one negotiated rule making, the other the moral dialogue model. Negotiated rule making is a model adopted by some executive branch agencies applying ADR procedures in the development of regulations. In this model, representatives of all the affected parties come together with the agency to draft a proposed rule that takes into account the interests and needs of the parties as well as the requirements of the underlying statute. Although this procedure complements the legislative process, it is not applicable to that process for several reasons. First, "reg-neg" involves single, well-defined problems. Legislative deliberations, typically, do not. Second, the reg-neg model assigns equal negotiating and veto power to each party of the negotiating committee and requires a consensus of the committee for action. Legislatures do not and cannot do this, since they must abide by the majority vote rule. Finally, reg-neg uses neutral facilitators, whereas legislatures' are controlled by partisan committee chairmen and party leaders. These structural differences preclude the use of reg-neg type processes in Congressional negotiations. However, there is room, Kummer suggested, for the use of a reg-neg/ADR-type process to identify interests and issues and to suggest areas of agreement and disagreement before traditional negotiations take place. Kummer then described an alternative approach called the "moral dialogue model." This model is more a set of values that should surround legislative deliberations, Kummer explained. It defines "reasonable compromises" as ones which reflect sound judgment and preserve personal and community integrity and mutual respect. Its underlying premise is that policy dialogue must 1) address the moral issues underlying the conflict directly in the policy debate, and 2) utilize a process that ensures a moral debate. A moral debate, Kummer explained, is one which 1) allows for full and good faith discussions of the concerns and interests of all parties, 2) discussions must be approached with the intention of reaching a reasonable compromise (rather than intentional obstruction or grand-standing), and 3) negotiations must be focused toward developing mutually satisfying options and end results. The rationale behind this model, Kummer explained, is that such a dialogue is less likely to get sidetracked, and more likely to find mutually satisfactory solutions. Further, such a process is more likely to result in mutual respect and improved relationships between parties. This approach is in contrast to political discourse which involves consideration of issues unrelated to the merits of the issue--future elections, risks for politicians and parties, or power concerns, for example. However, political discourse still seems to be the predominant mode of decision making in Congressional deliberations. Cross-Cultural Water Conflict Resolution Small Grant Presentation by Kate Berry, December 5, 1991 Kate Berry's small grant also examined the legislative process, along with the judicial process, in the context of cross-cultural water conflict resolution. Specifically, she examined dispute resolution processes between Native Americans and others as they have been affected by the McCarran Amendment. The McCarran Amendment, according to Berry, "is the only Congressional legislation ever enacted that deals even indirectly with Indian water policy. That amendment waives the sovereign immunity of the United States, thereby allowing the federal government to participate in and be bound by lawsuits involving the general adjudication and administration of water rights (i.e., the United States consents to be sued in `comprehensive' water rights proceedings). The importance of this amendment to Indian water policy did not become obvious until two U.S. Supreme Court rulings," Berry said, "one in 1976 and the other in 1983. These decisions extended the waiver of sovereign immunity to Indian tribes and then encouraged state courts to assume jurisdiction of Indian water rights, with the understanding that these rights continue to be determined by federal law." The impact of these decisions has been highly controversial. States, by and large, have supported the inclusion of Native American claims to water in state courts because it facilitates state planning of water allocation. The states also argue that the inclusion of Native American water claims in state court proceedings will better protect Native American claims and will facilitate orderly planning and development of Native American water. Most Native Americans, however, do not see the effect as positive. They prefer to remain free of state court jurisdictions on principal and for practical reasons. State courts, they feel, are likely to be more hostile than federal courts to Native American claims to water as state judges are elected and are likely to be susceptible to popular pressure, which when water is scarce, is likely to oppose extensive Native American claims. Thus, the result of the McCarran Amendment, according to Berry, has been to restrict the dispute resolution forum available to tribes. This, she said, has had three primary effects. "First, by eliminating the element of consent, the balance of power is influenced." Tribes are at a disadvantage when they do not have a choice as to when and whether to pursue water rights claims. "Consent," she argues, "is an import element of sovereignty," however, the McCarran Amendment waives this sovereignty both for the U.S. Government and for Native American nations. "Second, the McCarran Amendment and its subsequent interpretation have affected the timing of water rights conflicts." States, wishing to clarify Native American claims quickly, for planning purposes, have tended to adjudicate the claims sooner than the Native Americans wanted to. "Thus," Berry found, "as tribes look less favorably on litigation as a means to manage water conflicts, negotiated settlements appear more appealing." But the settlements, Berry says, "may not be a panacea . . . . They enhance state control over water and encourage further development of large water projects." Neither of these effects benefit Native Americans, Berry said. Cooperative Natural Resource Dispute Resolution The Promise, The Reality, and the Future Seminar with Kaleen Cottingham, Natural Resources Policy Adviser to Washington Governor Booth Gardner; Burlington Resources Fellow at the Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law. and Dan Luecke, Director, Rocky Mountain Office, Environmental Defense Fund. Sponsored by the Natural Resources Law Center and the University of Colorado School of Law, November 5, 1991. Ms. Cottingham began her presentation by briefly examining the traditional avenues of environmental policy-making: litigation, legislation, and administrative fiat. These techniques have not kept up with society's demands and expectations due to two principal factors: lack of leadership and policy gridlock. The proliferation of interest groups and the decline of public participation have created an environment of stalemate in which no single entity can gather the necessary momentum to change the status quo. Ms. Cottingham suggested that mediation can be used as a tool to supplement the existing political, legislative, and administrative processes. Five factors among potential participants make mediation appropriate: 1) balance of power, 2) commitment to resolution in another forum, yielding to a commitment to mediation, 3) fear of downside risks, 4) desire to change existing relationships from negative to neutral or positive, and 5) ripeness of the issue. As a caveat, Ms. Cottingham noted that participants must realize that mediation may often be a very time-consuming, meeting-intensive process. Ms. Cottingham then described briefly her experiences in mediating environmental disputes for the Governor of Washington. Most of her work involved disputes concerning Native American tribal treaty rights. She noted that a significant factor distinguishing her work in Washington State was the relative scarcity of practicing water lawyers (compared to Colorado). Ms. Cottingham concluded her remarks with the observation that mediation helps build relationships but is not necessarily appropriate for all situations and that it is best suited where traditional processes appear hopeless. Mr. Luecke examined the potential of mediation from the perspective of an activist within the environmental community. One of mediation's principal drawbacks is its high cost/benefit ratio. Typically outnumbered, environmental groups must necessarily invest their limited resources carefully. The opportunity costs associated with protracted negotiations consequently fall more heavily upon them. Mr. Luecke noted that the mediation process does not necessarily provide any advantage in terms of procedural fairness. The disparate bargaining positions parties typically bring to the table are not addressed by the mediation process and constitute a significant impediment to equitable solutions. As a result, mediation has failed to achieve any greater degree of success than other processes of dispute resolution in the environmental arena. Mr. Luecke expanded upon the shortcomings of mediation, noting: 1) Although environmental disputes typically involve a multiplicity of parties, at the core, the issues break down to a dispute pitting the environmentalists against all others. 2) Those agreements reached through the mediation process rarely include effective enforcement mechanisms. In cases where the mediators are no longer available (i.e., agency gutted, change of administration), this shortcoming significantly limits the efficacy of mediation. 3) Mediation often fails to address the "real interests" of the parties since no groups desire (or are willing) to give up the power they have obtained. Mr. Luecke concluded his remarks with an assessment of the characteristics he felt necessary for effective use of the mediation process. Parties participating must have the ability to affect either the political environment or public opinion in order to have "respectability" at the bargaining table. They must also possess both the authority and the "staying power" to implement agreements reached and, finally, the agreements reached must provide for effective enforcement mechanisms. FELLOWSHIP AND JOB ANNOUNCEMENTS Northwestern University's Dispute Resolution Research Center Northwestern University's Dispute Resolution Research Center offers one or two year fellowships at the post-doctoral level. Applicants must have completed a Ph.D. in a social science discipline prior to beginning the fellowship. Fellows will have the opportunity to pursue their own research and will be granted as much as $5,000/year in research support. Fellows are also invited to join in the ongoing research of faculty associated with the Center, audit courses, and participate in the Center's scholarly and applied seminars and workshops. Fellows will teach four sections per year of an applied course in negotiations at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management. The fellowships pay $35,000/year. Applications should include a vita, examples of written work, two letters of recommendation, and a statement as to how current or future research interest would benefit from association with the Center. Application deadline is March 1, 1992. Inquiries and applications should be directed to Joan Dillon or Peggy Dash, the Dispute Resolution Research Center, Organization Behavior Department, Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-2011 (708) 491-8068. The United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency The United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency will conduct a competition in 1992 for one-year Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowships in support of unclassified doctoral dissertation research in arms control and disarmament. Law candidates for the Juris Doctor degree are also eligible if they are writing a substantial paper in partial fulfillment of degree requirements. The application deadline is March 15, 1992. For information and application materials write Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program, Operations Analysis, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Washington DC 20451. NEW WORKING PAPERS AVAILABLE #91-18. "Nonviolent Versus Violent Ethnic Protest: Which is More Effective in Achieving Democracy, Human Rights, and Social Justice in Africa." by Jim Scarritt. $3.00 #92-1. "Legal Mechanisms for Allocating Water Shortages: A Case Study of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project in California." by Larry MacDonnell. $3.00 #92-2. "Disputing Distributions in a Shrinking Commons: The Impact of Drought on Water Allocation Institutions." by Lloyd Burton. $4.00 #92-3. "Managing Global Change and Environmental Quality Conflicts: Lessons from the 1988-199? California Drought." by Guy Burgess. $3.00 #92-4. "The McCarran Amendment and Cross-Cultural Water Conflict Resolution." by Catherine Berry. $2.00 #92-5. Conflict Resolution Theory and its Application in Legislative Negotiations on Moral Issues: A Case Study of the Civil Rights Act of 1990 and 1991." by Rita Kummer. $4.00 #92-6. "The Impacts of California's Drought Experiences on Water Management Institutions." by Charles W. Howe. $3.00 #92-7. "Decision Support Systems (DSS) for Environmental Conflicts: Tools for Establishing a Base for Negotiation." by Ren‚ F. Reitsma. $3.00 #92-8. "Technical Metrics in Water Supply Management Decision Making." by Lynn E. Johnson. $3.00 #92-9. "Some Ethical Problems in Mediated Dispute Resolution." by Kevin Gibson. Dissertation, Philosophy Department, University of Colorado - Boulder. $18.00 #92-10. "Voices of Justice: Languages of Pro Se Civil Litigants." by John P. McIver. $3.00 1991 Working Papers Still Available #91-1. "Third Party Intervention in Nicaragua." by Paul Wehr and John Paul Lederach. $3.00 #91-2. "Intervention and the Search for a New Moral Paradigm." by Jerald R. Wagenman and Joan M. Van Becelaere. $4.00 #91-3. "Talking War: Symbols, Strategies and Images." by George Cheney. $1.50 #91-4. "Power Dynamics Between Elderly Institutionalized Mothers and Their Adult Daughters." by Pamela M. Foy. (Thesis) $10.00 "The Impact of Court-Annexed Arbitration on the Administration of Civil Justice in Colorado." Final Report of the University of Colorado Court-Annexed Arbitration Evaluation Project. Project Co- Directors: Lloyd Burton and John McIver. December, 1990. No Charge. #91-5. "Economic Growth and Military Spending in the United States, 1952- 1988." by Michael D. Ward and David R. Davis. $3.00 #91-6. "Intractable Conflict and Constructive Confrontation." by Heidi Burgess and Guy Burgess. $3.00 #91-7. "Opposition in East Germany: The Role of Religion in Society and in Conflict." by Galen Switzer. $3.00 #91-8. "Justice Without Violence: Program Description." by Guy and Heidi Burgess. $2.00 #91-9. "Justice Without Violence: Related Theory and Research." by Heidi Burgess and Guy Burgess. $3.00 #91-10. "Nonviolent Change in the Soviet Union: A May 1991 Assessment of Political Conditions and the Possibilities for Nonviolent Change." by Zaven Arabajan. $3.00 #91-11. "Nonviolence and the 1989 Revolution in Eastern Europe." by Joel Edelstein. $3.00 #91-12. "Peace, Justice, and the Faces of Power." by Kenneth Boulding. $3.00 #91-13. "Violence, Nonviolence and Justice Struggles in Sandinista Nicaragua." by Paul Wehr and Sharon Erikson Nepstad. $3.00 #91-14. "Foreign Threats and Domestic Actions: The Case of Sanctions Against South Africa." by William Kaempfer, Anton Lowenberg, H. Naci Mocan, and Lynne Bennett. $3.00 #91-15. "Belief-Systems and the Appeal of Justice Without Violence Lessons from the Middle East." by Amin M. Kazak. $3.00 #91-16. "Seeking Justice Without Violence in India: Efforts of Grassroots Development Organizations." by Betsy Moen. $3.00 #91-17. "Justice Without Violence in the People's Republic of China: An Evaluation of China's 1989 Movement to Resolve Citizen/Government Civil and Political Rights Conflicts Through Nonviolent Methods." by Steve Thomas. $3.00