Words from George Mitchell

George Mitchell is the current Special Envoy for Middle East Peace. Very recently, he briefed reporters about the trilateral meeting President Obama had with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel and President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. The transcript of Mr. Mitchell's briefing can be found here.

Mr. Mitchell made some interesting comments about conflict resolution--regardless of one's view of the situation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority--and I'd like your comments.

The tone was positive and determined. The President made clear his commitment to moving forward, and the leaders shared that commitment.

Q: What is the importance of having initial commitments to the success of resolving conflict? How do you achieve these initial commitments?

The President told them that we cannot restart talks from scratch. That said, neither side should hold out for the perfect formula. Painful compromise by all will be necessary. This was a message that the President conveyed to each of the leaders in private as well.

Q: What are the advantages of reminding parties where they have been? And the advantages or disadvantages of taking a firm position, such as talks cannot be restarted from scratch? How do you deliver the message that "painful compromise" may be necessary to resolve a dispute?

So yes, we haven’t gotten everything we wanted, we haven’t gotten it as fast as we want it. But in conflict resolution, if one adopts the standard that one must always get 100 percent of what one seeks at every stage of the process, otherwise you’re failure, well, then of course, there would never ever be a resolution of any conflict. Painful compromises are necessary for everybody. So we are determined to proceed. We will not be deterred by – I don’t want to say accusations, but criticisms, by descriptions of failure. We believe that we are doing the right thing. We believe we have made substantial progress and we intend to continue with full determination until there is comprehensive peace in the region.

Q: Often during negotiations, one of the parties will say "we're not making any progress, we're out of here." How do you keep parties at the table during times when seemingly no progress is being made? How do you educate parties to a negotiation that resolving conflict is process, often times not a quick one?

Does good governance act as a tool for resolving conflicts?

Yes, according to Nigerian author MJ Amachree, from Rivers State University of Science and Technology.  Good governance means many things, but it includes concepts such as popular representation, respect for minority rights, accountability, the rule of law, transparency, and due process protections. Without these safeguards (along with others mentioned in the article), the government degenerates, which can bring about conflict.  

Twogether in Texas

That Texas Legislature is serious about resolving conflict, especially in the marriage context.  A law goes into effect Monday for all of those who want to enjoy the benefits of marital bliss.  In addition to the marriage fee increasing from $30 to $60, couples must now go to a conflict resolution class before a county clerk will issue a marriage certificate.  The Houston Chronicle reports that if you want to get married, you and your soon-to-be spouse must take an 8 hour class that provides communication, conflict resolution, and "healthy marriage" skills.  If you take the class, the newer, more expensive fee can be waived.

Applying a different model to the Middle East?

Does one size fit all?  Can one model for conflict resolution be applied to all conflicts?

According to a recent article from the TimesOnline, the answer is no.

In looking at ways to solve the "mid-east" issue, some have advocated that the Northern Ireland peace process should be used as a model to develop a peace process in the Middle East.  The Times points out that a new study issued by Peterhouse College's John Bew and Martyn Frampton takes the position that a one-size-fits-all conflict resolution policy may not work in all situations.  In fact, there may be times where a willingness to negotiate may not be profitable at all--at least in the world of terrorism, the authors conclude that "the willingness of a state to negotiate might encourage the terrorists to believe that their opposition are ready to concede--even when this is not the case."

In our day-to-day lives, both business and professional, do we take a one-size-fits-all approach to resolving conflict?  As professional peacemakers, do we take the time to evaluate the parties' interests and develop a game-plan and methodology for resolving that particular conflict, or do we try to make everyone fit into the size and shape of shoe that we like to wear?

Road Rage

We live in a part of town with cyclists.  All around us.  All of the time.  A couple of years ago, a law professor was convicted by a jury of either aggravated assault by threat or action when she "tapped" a cyclist who as in front of her and going too slow.   The conviction was thrown out by an appeals court because of a faulty jury instruction.

The folks at Bicycling.com are focusing on the strained world of cyclists and drivers and how those two groups can coexist.  Parts one and two of their series can be found here and here.  Noting the deteriorating attitudes of cyclists and drivers to each other, executive editor Bill Strickland suggests that cyclists take the following approaches if they find themselves in a confrontation with a driver:

• Apologize for anything you did wrong;
• Personalize yourself;
• Point out incorrect information the driver may state;
• Cite the bottom line (i.e., it's easy for a driver to injure or kill a cyclist); and
• Cut off the interaction.

What do you think?  Is this a good formula for helping resolve conflict between drivers and cyclists (the editors say that they use this approach with success).  What about as a model for other types of conflicts?