AN AGENDA FOR CHANGE
The challenges in international politics have shifted in the last 15 years, as new countries and new identity groups have emerged from the collapse of the Soviet empire and the ending of the Cold War.
Concurrently, and not entirely coincidentally, the conflict resolution movement has joined the human rights movement as a serious player in the efforts to produce constructive social change in an increasingly fragmented world. While pragmatism was effective in previous eras in order for “negative peace” to be established, we are learning through painful experience that this is not sufficient to keep violence at bay. We must now press for “positive peace” if we are to prevent societies from using violence to settle their differences, or sliding back into chaos after emerging from a brutal civil war. I’ve argued that one way to do that is for the international conflict resolution community to begin incorporating a more explicit human rights dimension in its work.What, exactly, would such a shift require? First of all, it would mean a rethinking of basic assumptions. Conflict resolution practitioners who act as mediators or facilitators should not assume, as a default, that the inclusion of rights-based concerns is anathema to peace; there is no proof that this is the case. On the contrary, logic dictates that it could be just the opposite, especially in intra-state conflict in which human rights abuses have been either a cause or a consequence of the violence. In such cases, peace cannot be achieved unless the human rights dimensions of the problem are explicitly addressed.
Instead, third-party processes should substitute the default assumption that expanding the normative frame of peace-building is a good idea, and look for ways to do so. At the Track 1 level, the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities offers a provocative example of how this can work.
It includes using compliance with human rights norms as an incentive, rather than only as a threat. As Max van der Stoel so ably demonstrated, there are numerous ways that governments can solve their internal problems by compliance with the norms rather than by the thwarting of them. A creative mediator can, and should, assist in framing alternatives for governments in this way, and should initiate that discussion if government representatives do not.Track 1 mediators should also continue to clarify the limits of states’ discretion in excusing the universally condemned crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan did so explicitly in the guidance he gave to his special representatives. The International Criminal Court will assist in this as well, as its mandate calls for prosecution of these crimes.
For Track 2 conflict resolution actors, the agenda is slightly different. Without the leverage of the Track 1 mediators, Track 1½ and Track 2 third-party processes are more dependent, and effectively so, on the relationship that develops between the interveners and the parties to the conflict. Therefore, the framing of that relationship must include the human rights dimensions from its outset in the conflict assessment phase; this means assessing how human rights concerns are part of the problem and therefore have to be part of the solution.
Several NGOs mentioned earlier explicitly incorporate human rights concerns into their approach to conflict resolution, and other NGOs can draw on their examples. This could include a range of options, from simply stating human rights and social justice as a goal to integrating discussions about human rights concerns directly into conversations with the relevant parties. The first step, therefore, is for each Track 2 conflict resolution organization to reframe its mission statement to include its commitment to social justice and compliance with human rights norms.
In addition, NGOS can take on a more direct advocacy role in relation to their Track 1 counterparts, lobbying them to strengthen the official commitment to human rights and social justice. If official conflict resolution processes are more explicitly supportive of human rights norms, then the Track 2 processes that are set up to complement the official efforts can justifiably invoke these norms as well.18
Most importantly, those of us designing and implementing conflict resolution processes at all levels in intra-state conflicts cannot assume that human rights are “not our issue.” They are key components of parties' interests and concerns, significant indicators of power asymmetry and sometimes power abuses, and often both a cause and a consequence of the conflicts we are trying to settle or transform. It is crucial that conflict resolution professionals know and understand the strengths and weaknesses of human rights norms, how these have been translated into international law, and the impacts such laws might have in a particular conflict. The question to answer is not if, but how, to use these norms in a constructive and appropriate way.
The strength of the combined conflict resolution/human rights agenda is a values- based structure plus a process for advancing it that takes into account the profound changes in attitude that are required to put such values into practice. The challenge for the conflict resolution professional is to embrace this agenda in order to make positive peace a reality.