ACR's Public
and Intense Conflicts Committee
Policy Statement
on War and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Adopted November 10, 2002 by ACR Board of
Directors
The Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR)
is a membership association committed to educational
activities that promote peaceful, effective conflict
resolution, both nationally and internationally.
Within the context of our mission, the Board of
ACR believes that we need to engage in an educational
dialogue about the issues raised by the escalating
tensions and violence in our world.
ACR is committed to constructive approaches to
the resolution of conflict, whether interpersonal,
communal, organizational, national or international.
We believe that constructive approaches to conflict
resolution do not require ignoring or sacrificing
key interests or concerns of participants.
ACR believes that it is important to promote
a dialogue about how to deal with the potential
threat of the development and deployment of weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, the United
States, and elsewhere. We think this dialogue
should take into account what we have learned
about dealing with serious conflict. For example,
as we consider the impending crisis concerning
Iraq and the U.S., the following key lessons are
relevant and are offered as discussion points:
-
Sensitivity to Alternative Views.
Conflict surrounding the development of WMD
has to be understood from the viewpoints of
the many different stakeholders involved.
A thorough analysis of the interests of all
parties to this conflict is needed. To consider
these interests is not a sign of weakness,
but of strength and confidence that good solutions
to difficult problems can be found.
-
Polarization. Presenting
an issue in polarized terms does not promote
constructive approaches to the resolution
of conflict: there are alternatives other
than doing nothing or taking violent action.
When we limit the options under consideration
in this way, we make it harder to achieve
effective, long-term solutions to the problem.
-
Long-term Implications.
In serious conflicts, good decisions are seldom
made when people act precipitously and without
adequate attention to long-term implications.
Slowing a process down is often the most effective
way of ensuring that a broader and wiser approach
can be taken. For example, in the case of
Iraq, providing enough time to allow inspections
to have a significant impact and building
a broad coalition to address concerns about
WMD and the relationship among the parties
would probably produce a less volatile long-term
outcome.
-
Use of Positive Incentives.
Positive inducements are often effective in
reducing the rapid escalation of conflict.
Threats of dire consequences typically force
conflictants to “feel backed into a
corner.” Many such positive inducements
can be offered in such a way that they are
neither a bribe nor a reward for bad behavior,
but a genuine effort to address problems that
are keeping a party isolated and dangerous.
-
Third Party Involvement. Third
parties can often help to bridge gaps where
impossible chasms seem to exist. This would
require the identification of third parties
who can help broker solutions to this crisis
that might address concerns about WMD without
resorting to war.
-
Consequences. Escalating
a conflict usually entails unforeseen and
dangerous consequences. For example, we believe
an escalation of conflict with Iraq to the
level of a violent preemptive intervention
could lead to an escalation of terrorism.
The potential to build a strong international
coalition to look at the underlying causes
of terrorism and to decrease the incentives
for its use could be set back significantly
by a war.
In long-term and entrenched disputes, understanding
the history and context of the conflict is essential.
At this time, ACR believes it is important to
understand the history of violence in Iraq and
the relationship between Iraq and the United States.
We do not advocate naïve acceptance of dubious
promises or guarantees. We do believe that the
uncontrolled and poorly monitored development
of WMD is a problem that extends far beyond the
current crisis. We believe the U.S. and its allies
need to expand the options that are being considered
to take into account the approaches we have discussed.
Based on the lessons that conflict resolution
professionals have learned in dealing with serious
conflict over many years, ACR urges de-escalation.
This would allow for the pursuit of alternative
approaches and the assessment of long-term interests
of all involved. Efforts to deal with the problem
of WMD should be made through the emerging but
still fragile coalition of the world community.
We urge ACR members to engage in a dialogue around
these issues. Also, we urge ACR members to extend
that dialogue within their communities with the
goal of educating more people about options that
increase the possibility of peaceful settlements
to apparently intractable conflicts. We believe
the principles we have learned from our years
of work as conflict resolvers can be productively
applied to the most serious conflicts of our day,
whether these involve weapons of mass destruction,
terrorism, the conflict in the Middle East or
in other regions where issues of mass violence
are present.
Public and Intense Conflicts
Committee of the ACR Board of Directors
Visit the Public and Intense Committee Page:
http://www.acrnet.org/about/committees/publicandintense.htm
|
