Confict Analysis There Has Been

Confict Analysis

There has been wide debate on the way in which nowadays conflict resolution can take place, whether it can be achieved at the level of the national state or whether it is the attribute of a larger organism created by international law: the international organizations.

Regardless of the different perspectives, the major discussions start from the premises of what exactly is a "conflict," how it can be defined and what is the best solution to deal with its component parts, its causes, its effects, the actors involved in order to attempt to discuss preemptive measures for the future. The major reason for which conflict analysis is being carried out in the world is in fact the one related to the fear that history may repeat itself and humanity is yet to learn from its mistakes.

Scholars have tried for decades now to debate the simple matter of a definition of "conflict," yet they are separated in opinion, thought, argument, and approach. However, in order to see and point out the weaknesses of one approach and the strengths of another, it is important that a comparison process be established. Therefore, the present paper will put in balance the opinions of two of the best known groups of scholars in the field, by analyzing their theories concerning conflict issues, definitions, approaches. On the one hand, there is Dean G. Pruitt and Sung Hee Kim; on the other hand, Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse, and Hugh Miall.

In general, there is little room for labeling a theory as being strong or weak because the power of the theory stands in the way in which it manages to answer the questions of real life and the way in which it can convince the public of its sustainability. Therefore, it is difficult to argue on whether one theory is stronger than the other and state this as a general truth. However, a parallel analysis can be constituted in order to point out the resemblances and the differences between the two sets of lines of thought and arguments.

Similarities and differences

Taking into account the fact that the definition of a term is what actually places that term in reality, the analysis of the two sides can start from the definition of what is "conflict." In this sense, Rambotham, Woodhouse, and Miall, in their "Contemporary conflict resolution" (2003) try to set, from the very beginning the background for their complex discussion on means to resolve international conflicts. In this sense, they argue that "by conflict we mean the pursuit of incompatible goals by different groups" (2005, p27). On the other hand, Pruitt and Kim view a conflict as "a perceived divergence of interest, or a belief that the parties' current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously" (2004, p4).

In the light of an analysis it is rather clear that at this point the two opinions differ. The most striking difference comes from the precise nature of the definition. In this sense, on the one hand, in the first definition, the existence of a divergent opinion is not placed in doubt, but rather a stated and categorical fact. In their opinion, the notion of conflict is more oriented towards the idea of armed, international confrontation. In this sense, they argue that "(our definition) suggests a broader span of time and a wider class of struggle than armed conflict" (Rambotham, Woodhouse, and Miall, 2004, p 27). Therefore, from this point-of-view, it is clear that the terms of reference the authors make appeal are larger than the ones confined in the idea of social conflict.

On the other hand, the second definition takes into account an element which is closer to a personal or social perception. The simple idea of "perceived" imposes the notion of real and unreal. On this stand, Roger Fisher, another important scholar who has been analyzing possibilities of conflict negotiation considers that indeed, perceptions are crucial for any type of communication and especially when taking into account an international scene. More precisely, he argues that in fact the actual elements we are negotiating represent the outcomes of different perceptions (Fisher, 1991). Therefore, he suggests that conflict negotiation should contain discussions on how to change the negotiating attitude and misperceptions and deal with the core issues which are in fact the real interests of the state. The author makes an important difference between interests and positions arguing that positions are harder to negotiate, as opposed to interests which in fact represent the actual issue under discussion in the moment of a conflict (Fisher, 1991). Thus, his theory insists on the personal attitude of the actors involved in a negotiation, which is the result of the individual or collective perception of the issue under discussion.

Starting from the way in which the two approaches view the idea of conflict, the issues of conflict strategies and escalation, the role of third parties, and the timing can be discussed.

On the one hand, Rambotham, Woodhouse, and Miall note the "current debate within the field between 'conflict resolvers' and 'conflict transformers'" (2005, p8). However, it is suggested that in fact the most advanced technique of conflict resolution represents that in which the actual environment can be transformed and improved so that there would be no repeat of history, therefore arguing that not only is one needed to attain peace in a conflict area, but that this endeavor should be done through reparatory means that would ensure a lasting transformation and peace.

One of the models presented for the escalation and de escalation of a conflict is somewhat similar to that of Dean G. Pruitt and Sung Hee Kim. In this sense, Rambotham, Woodhouse, and Miall argue that "the process of conflict escalation is complex and unpredictable. New issues and conflict parties can emerge, internal power struggles can alter tactics and goals and secondary conflicts and spirals can further complicate the situation" (2005, p11). The steps they present as being part of the structure of a conflict are: differences, contradictions, polarization, violence, war, ceasefire, agreement, normalization, reconciliation. (2005, p11)

Dean G. Pruitt and Sung Hee Kim take more into account social conflict, conflict which is based more on the individual approach to one situation. In this sense, they argue that in fact there are three elements which lead to the escalation of the conflict: the level of personal aspiration, the perception on the situation, and the perception on the way in which solutions can be found. More precisely, this approach is in the framework of the actual definition of the idea of "conflict." In their view, the escalation of the conflict can be defined by the conflict spiral model of escalation and the structural change model. More precisely, the first model of conflict escalation takes into account the continuous development of the conflict by retaliatory actions. Thus, one party's actions for either defense or offense are seen by the other party as being totally offensive and their attitude as well changes. The process cannot be stopped due to the lack of precise perception of the intents of the other side. In this situation, the conflict escalates to the maximum point of conflict. From this point-of-view, at the moment of maximum tension, the situation appears to be defined by a sum zero game, in the sense that in the perception of the other side, only one can win, without seeing any positive mutual solutions.

From one point-of-view, Dean G. Pruitt and Sung Hee Kim's theory is correct having in mind that their view is related more to the social conflict rather than international conflicts. On the other hand, Rambotham, Woodhouse, and Miall also consider that each international conflict is also a social conflict at one point, as "escalation phases move along a normal distribution curve from the initial differences that are part of all social developments, through the emergence of an original contradiction that may or may not remain latent, on up through the process of polarization in which antagonistic parties form and the conflict becomes manifest, and culminating in the outbreak of direct violence and war" (2005, p11). However, it is stressed that even during the de escalation process, the approach is one in which institutions and state actors play a significant part, rather than the individual. Furthermore, it is pointed out that at particular moment sin the conflict escalation, the polarization of forces takes place and even individuals become part of a larger group whose interest can become positive or negative.

Despite the slightly different approaches the two sides take they are convergent and a similar pattern of escalation of conflict can be established taking into account that Rambotham, Woodhouse, and Miall also point out that "when two parties are reacting to each other's actions, it is easy for a spiral of hostility and escalation to develop through positive feedback" (2005, p18). At this moment however the intervention of a third party "may change the conflict structure and allow a different pattern of communication, enabling the party to filter or reflect back the messages, attitudes and behavior of the conflictants. This intervention may damper the feedback spiral" (2005, p18)

Dean G. Pruitt and Sung Hee Kim's theory suggests that at the moment of problem solving "the parties or their representatives talk freely to one another. They exchange information about their interests and priorities, work together to identify the true issues dividing them, brainstorm in search of alternatives that bridge their opposing interests, and collectively evaluate these alternatives from the viewpoint of their mutual welfare."(1986, p. 139) This approach is similar to what Fisher advocates as problem solving and it can be an efficient path for communication. In this sense, it is important to separate people from the problems, and react to the actual issues that place the parties on the same spectrum of analysis before tackling the sensitive issues which raised the conflict. Terrence Hopmann considers that there are two solutions that could be effective for the resolution of a conflict . On the one hand there is the bargaining one which supports the idea of concessions from both parties, searching for new solutions that would cater for the needs of both actors involved. The second one, which is in accordance with Pruitt and Kim is problem solving, also advocated by Fisher. In this case, the solution is not found in the ones stated by the two parties at the beginning of the conflict, but rather a new one which can be mutually benefitting and leaving no impression that either side gave in on their needs, interests, or identities.

This is an important aspect because it has to be taken into account, as Fisher suggests in his book, that whether the conflict takes place in the political world or not, the ones trying to resolve the conflict from the two sides have groups or individuals they have to be accountable to. Therefore, problem solving can be a useful tool for managing to present and support each side's interests and still reach a mutually accepted agreement.