The theory and practice of conflict resolution (CR) has been around for thirty years. Has it actually contained, let alone resolved, any conflict? And is it possible for outsiders to foster reconciliation and peacebuilding?

A study from the University of Bradford’s Department of Peace Studies provides an overview of CR theory against the practical experience of Croatian peace activists. Does CR need to undergo reappraisal in the context of indigenous peacebuilding processes?

While there has been spirited debate within the CR community, CR theorists have never been able to step outside the bounds of their discourse. CR practitioners can assume it is possible to understand violent conflict to the extent that the problem can be resolved and the conflict stopped as warring parties are enlightened by the rational processes of CR.

Experience in Croatia shows this is not the way of the real world. Here, as in other war zones, violence and the psycho-social effects it inflicts are part of everyday life. Fear, insecurity and violence, torture, disappearances and rape become ‘normal’ and ‘natural’. Hatred, distrust, harassment and discrimination against Serbs, Muslims and other minorities become second nature. Aspects of the prevailing culture of violence are rooted in the 1991-1995 war and the militarism pervading the state system.

In the immediate post-war period a key avenue to social reconstruction was physical reconstruction. And training programmes in non-violence, civil society, communication skills, human rights, gender and the use of the Internet have aimed not at resolution but something more long lasting – the construction of a Croatian peace constituency able to provide a counter-discourse to violent nationalism and militarism.

Other findings that emerged from interviews with Croatian peace protagonists include:

• Recognition that participation in peace programmes has emboldened Croats to be critical of government and to protest high levels of military spending without fear of threats or reprisals.
• The feeling that peace activists have outgrown CR methodologies and doubts that there is a role for foreigners to create space for alternative discourses.

The implications for the study of conflict resolution include:

• The need to recognise that analysis of conflict is a deeply personal experience.
• Methods used by peace activists should develop out of experience working in particular communities, not be prescribed by theory.

Source(s):
‘From conflict resolution to transformative peacebuilding: reflections from Croatia’, Centre for Conflict Resolution Working Paper #4, Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, by A. B. Fetherston April 2000 Full document.

Funded by: Social Science Research Council, MacArthur Foundation

id21 Research Highlight: 18 September 2001

Further Information:
Betts Fetherston
Department of Peace Studies
University of Bradford
Bradford
West Yorkshire BD7 1DP
UK

Tel: +44 (0)1274 235176
Contact the contributor: a.b.fetherston@bradford.ac.uk

Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, UK

Other related links:
'Peacebuilding from below: can NGOs subvert pro-war messages?'

Visit the Centre for Conflict Resolution

The World Bank focuses on Conflict

Refer to the Journal of Conflict, Security and Development

Economic Reconstruction and Development in South East Europe

'The price of peace. Assessing interagency work in postwar Croatia and Slovenia'

'Conflict: including ethnic conflict, peacekeeping and peace studies' from Eldis