PART 1: HEALING CONFLICT

I grew up in Belfast, during the 30-year war. In the 1970’s and ’80’s, the north of Ireland was a turbulent and violent place, with death and destruction the norm and hyper-vigilance for everyone living in that environment was intense and when the war ended, in 1998 with the securing of the Good Friday Agreement, there was jubilation in the streets as a war-weary people tried to rebuild their lives.

The north of Ireland was one of three seemingly intractable war zones in the world. Northern Ireland, South Africa and the Middle East were the three last war zones around the globe that were considered “unsolvable”. Until two of them weren’t.

During the peace process that secured an end to the war in the north of Ireland, I had a privileged position working in the Irish Parliament on the sidelines watching the negotiations unfold. Prior to this, I had legal training and had been a news journalist for 10 years for Ireland’s biggest newspapers covering, among other things, human interest and court reporting stories relating to the north. It was during this time that I saw the pieces of the conflict find negotiation, resolution and peace.

Conflict resolution isn’t inevitable, but with a few key ingredients, it can be. And the components for conflict resolution at a macro-level (in a war zone), and at a micro-level (between individuals), are largely the same. If we can combine these ingredients together in any conflict situation, we can secure peace.

HISTORICAL CONFLICT IN IRELAND

The issue in the north of Ireland was a hangover from the British Empire, when the English laid claim to the entirety of Ireland for 900 years. During the English reign, the ‘Great Hunger’ of 1845-1852 saw a quarter of the population gone. A million people starved to death and another million emigrated after the main staple crop, the humble potato, failed year after year, and the other food (meat, fish, vegetables) was shipped out of the country under armed guard to England as ‘taxes’. The English gave their lords (known as ‘landed gentry’) “Irish property rights” as political favours, that forced the Irish to surrender their land under threat of death. The former owners became ‘tenant farmers’ of the land that had been owned by their forefathers for generations. After many attempts by the Irish to win their freedom, in 1922, the English split Ireland into two, retaining just under a quarter of the most profitable northern part of the country (“Northern Ireland”) for themselves, and allowed the Irish to have the remaining three-quarters to forge an Irish Republic. The Irish were mostly Catholic and, after partition, the landed gentry described the north as a “Protestant state for a Protestant people”.

“The English gave their lords (known as ‘landed gentry’) “Irish property rights” as political favours, that forced the Irish to surrender their land under threat of death. The former owners became ‘tenant farmers’ of the land that had been owned by their forefathers for generations.”

The newly established north was systemically biased in favour of the Protestant community at the expense of the Irish living there. Housing, employment, access to education and the electoral system, politics and the criminal justice system, were all biased against the Irish. Protestant landowners by law could take and use all of their Irish tenants’ votes, and this kept the biased system in place. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, as the civil rights protests in the US grew, the north ignited with demonstrations calling for change. The 30-year war began at the time of these protests, one of which ended with the British Army murdering 14 innocent demonstrators in what later became known as “Bloody Sunday”. Collusion between British Military Intelligence (MI5) and illegal protestant militia groups and the subsequent cover-ups, a police policy of ‘Shoot-to-Kill’, internment for suspects without trial, criminal justice system miscarriages of justice and numerous state- sanctioned murders, were all British government-approved injustices put upon the Irish at that time. Irish militia groups formed, to defend the Irish population and to fight for a united Ireland, free from British rule.

By the time the peace process ended the war in 1998, over 3,000 people were dead.

“The 30-year war began at the time of these protests, one of which ended with the British Army murdering 14 innocent demonstrators in what later became known as “Bloody Sunday”.”

WHAT IS CONFLICT?

Conflict is caused by the intentional violation of another’s boundaries. Whether in war or in personal relationships, conflict is created when one side believes itself to be more ‘important’ or ‘worthy’ than another and sees the boundaries (rights) of the other as ‘less than’ or less valuable than their own.

Often people involved in the conflict will dehumanise ‘the other’, as a means to ‘justify’ their harmful actions against them, using dynamics such as ‘power over’, and ’might makes right’. The nazis dehumanised the Jews in the Holocaust, not least to turn their soldiers from previously ordinary people into mass murderers.

Aggressive boundary violation alone is not conflict, it requires the violent responses that come as a result. Not all resistance is physically violent. Mahatma Gandhi advocated a successful non-violent resistance to British rule over his native India and his method became a global example. The suffragettes chained themselves to railings to protest the lack of votes for women. The phrase ‘Boycott’ has peaceful resistance at its (Irish) origin.

But, for the most part, self-defence involving physical violence is seen as the ‘right’ of those whose boundaries have been violently violated, where the response is seen to be meeting like with like. In historical conflicts boundary violations may have been going on for years, nurturing generation after generation of resentments and hostilities.

“Often people involved in the conflict will dehumanise ‘the other’, as a means to ‘justify’ their harmful actions against them, using dynamics such as ‘power over’, and ’might makes right’.

The central component of the hostility and resentment in conflict is injustice. If there is injustice, particularly in contravention of international law or when it is seen to be done with impunity, conflicts become entrenched. Also, when the boundary violation is seen to be unjust, previously unmotivated people become drawn into the conflict, resulting in its escalation. The backbone of any conflict, particularly in a guerrilla war, is the injustice felt by a section of the population for crimes against them that have gone unpunished. When a population has suffered injustices at the hands of an unpunished aggressor, guerrilla warfare in some guise is nearly always inevitable.

With every attack by an aggressor, resentment and hostility grows, becoming a potent and fertile recruitment drive for the guerrilla army fighting the aggressor. This cannot be overstated. In our hearts, we all know that we are all equal. When, for some reason of history or power, there is an imbalance between two sides in a conflict and one side feels ‘entitled’ to act with unjust impunity against the other, a human urge arises in all of us to right that wrong. If, for some reason, one side is less able to do so, say it doesn’t have the manpower or wealth to fight like with like, it will use stealth and other tactics to fight back.

With historical conflicts, the origin of the issues at hand can be obscured and tit-for-tat attacks can occur making both sides appear at fault, and anything short of diplomatic negotiations makes a compelling argument for that. But however the issues begin, everything that is done to a people or a nation cannot be erased unless it is truly healed with justice.

In no sense does routinely attacking a weaker or smaller population result in anonymity for the attacker. That score will have to be levelled at some point in a peace process, with war trials, reparations or international humiliation. Bessel van Der Kolk rightly said that the “body keeps the score”. Truly, so too do nations and large bodies of people when their treatment has been unjust.

The statement “without justice, there is no peace” is true.

SO, WHEN YOU HAVE CONFLICT, HOW IS IT RESOLVED?

In Part Two, we will look at what Conflict Resolution is and what it requires. We will look at the ingredients of any peace process, necessary for bringing about a lasting peace, and the approach required for inclusive and successful talks. Lastly, we will look at how to apply what we know to conflict in all of its guises, and see what we can learn as a species from our work in this area.