WELCOME !



Conflict Transformation and Conflict Sensitivity/
Do No Harm
A Two Day Orientation Workshop 
November 6-7, 2015
ULAP-FSUU
 Introduction
* Choose a partner you least know
* Get a piece of white bond paper and just
looking at the face of your partner without
looking at your paper.draw her/his face
* Share your drawing with your partner and with your
table group then together answer the ff: questions

What do I intend to take away from this seminar?

How do I learn best in a seminar?
What do I expect from my co-participants?
Day 1 AM 08:00 Arrival and settling down
08:30 Introduction of participants
09:00 Demystifying Conflict
10:00 Break
10:15 Conflict Escalation
11:15 Creative Conflict Transformation
12:00 Lunch
PM 13:15 Workshops
14:00 Introduction to Conflict Sensitivity
15:00 The basics of Do No Harm
The Relational and Action Frameworks
16:00 Break
16:15 Workshop
16:45 Group report
17:15 Synthesis and closing
Day 2 AM 08:30 Recap of Day 1
08:45 Conflict Mapping
(5 tools of analysis)
ABC Triangle
Timeline
Conflict Tree
Onion
Stakeholders Analysis
10:15 Break
10:30 Workshop (case application of the tools)
11:45 Plenary sharing

PM 13:15 The Do No Harm Action Framework

13:30 Workshop on DNH
14:30 Lessons learned
15:00 Mainstreaming CS/DNH in our daily work
16:00 Break
16:15 Synthesis, Evaluation and Next steps
17:00 HOME
 Group Discussion on Conflict
Each person in the table, recalls a conflict
experience..identify the main behavior exhibited in
the experience, describe the key attitude dominating
in the conflict and point out the main issue of the
conflict (write in meta-cards red for behavior, green
for attitudes and white for the main issue).Each
one share very briefly in the group her/his answer
without telling the experience in details. After all
have shared.put together all behavior, all attitudes
and all main issue and out of the answers formulate a
brief description of. conflict.
 
Life-Cycle of a Conflict 

B Behavior (physical and verbal violence) 








A Attitudes C Contradiction
(hatred, distrust, apathy) (blocked, stymied)

Conflict = Attitude (hatred) + Behavior (violence) + Contradiction (Issue)

 ATTITUDE refers to parties perceptions and
misperceptions of each other and of themselves, e.g.
demeaning stereotypes, influenced by emotions.
BEHAVIOR includes cooperation or coercion, gestures
signifying conciliation or hostility. Violent conflict
behavior is characterized by threats, coercion and
destructive attacks.
CONTRADICTION refers to the underlying conflict
situation, which includes the actual or perceived
incompatibility of goals and means between the conflict
parties.
Conflict = A + B + C
What is Conflict? (Johan Galtung)

A process through which two or more actors

(parties) try to pursue incompatible goals while
trying to undermine the goal-seeking potential of
the others

Has a life cycle of its own (appears, reaches an

emotional or even violent climax then tapers off
and disappears and often reappears)

Conflict has to do with incompatible goals and means.

Not About Incompatible Persons
Peter Wallensteen defines conflict as "a social
situation in which a minimum of two actors
(parties) pursue incompatible goals/objectives (or
perceive them as being incompatible).

Peter Wallensteen, Understanding conflict

resolution. War, Peace and the Global System, 2nd
edition, London 2007, p. 16.
 Myths About Conflicts
Myth #1:Conflict is bad and can never lead to anything
positive. While confrontation is a risk, it is often a
learning experience for those involved.

Myth #2: Conflicts are the result of clashing personalities.

Personalities do not conflict, behaviours do! Different
people can work together for years without having
conflict - until their behaviour conflicts. Differentiating
personality from behaviour makes conflict bearable
because if conflict is based on personalities, we can do
little else but tolerate it or kill the other.

Myth #3:Conflict and anger go together. Conflict with

people does not mean that there is anger involved. There
are a whole range of emotions that surface in conflict
situations.
 Mainstream Narrative in Conflict Theory

*The Problem: there are evil forces out there waiting for their time;
*When time comes their evil is articulated as violence;
*The Remedy: be strong enough to deter evil and crush it if needed;
*If strong enough there is a gift: security.

Alternative Narrative in Conflict Theory

*The Problem: there is a difficult unresolved conflict out there;

*The conflict leads to frustration leading to aggression-violence;
*The Remedy: conflict resolution with empathy-nonviolence-
creativity;
*If acceptable-sustainable-equitable enough there is a gift: peace.
 Conflict and Conflict Resolution: An Overview of
Frequent Mistakes
1. Wrong term: Conflict management-manager-executive
Proposal: mediator, peace worker; like social worker, not
sitting or acting on top of anybody, more like trying to help
and do an honest job, being a good, skilled worker and
professional.

2. Wrong term: Third party

Proposal: outside parties; not assuming there are only two
parties. Most conflict formations are complex (m actors-
parties, n issues; m+n above 2+1=3). m+1'st party assumes
one outsider only.
.
3. Wrong approach: Identifying the conflict with WHERE
Proposal: draw no geographical borders, the conflict
formation may have roots and effects anywhere. Never
identify the conflict with the arena where it shows up, that
may even be a deceptive stage.

4. Wrong approach: Identifying the conflict with WHEN

Proposal: draw no historical borders, the conflict may
have roots and effects "anywhen". Never identify the
conflict with when it shows up; there is always an aftermath,
and a "premath" where the causes- conditions were taking
roots. "Conflict prevention" and "Post= conflict" make no
sense; violence prevention and post-violence do.
5. Wrong approach: conflict = violence
Proposal: never identify conflict with violence, the
concepts are different and rich enough in themselves.
The conflict may have a direct violence phase, before and
after structural and cultural violence that may be even more
insidious because less visible.
6. Wrong approach: truce, cease-fire = peace
Proposal: never identify ceasefire, the end of direct
violence, with peace. After direct violence the situation
may even be worse. "Peace" or "peace process" means
reduction of all violences by handling conflicts
emphatically, nonviolently and creatively.
7. Wrong approach: effects of war-violence are visible
effects Proposal: never identify the costs of war-violence
only with such visibles as casualties, displaced persons,
material damage; also effects like lower violence thresholds,
PTSD-post traumatic stress disorder as reaction to trauma,
PGED-post glory exuberance disorder as reaction to victory,
may be more important in the longer run.
8. Wrong approach: "Get the parties to the table!"
Proposal: never start with the "table" for all parties, they
may not be ready for a new beginning; but start with the
mediator-peace worker as a skilled one-on-one dialogue
partner for the parties; not using sticks and carrots to force
upon them a solution, but empathy- nonviolence-creativity.
9. Wrong approach: tables bringing together leaders-elites
only Proposal: let 10,000 dialogues blossom, with elites,
with people. Let ideas accumulate as a peace reservoirs for all
to use.

10. Wrong approach: signed negotiated agreements as goal

Proposal: this is all useful as the beginning of a peace
process, but the approach is too exclusive. Goal: a
democratic peace process with review and reversibility, and no
return to violence. 

Conflict appears, reaches an emotional, even violent climax, then tapers
off, disappears - and often reappears. There is a logic: - individuals and
groups (such as nations and states) have goals:

-goals may be incompatible, exclude each other, like two states wanted
the same land, or two nations wanting the same state;

-when goals are incompatible a contradiction, an issue, is born; -actor/

party with unrealized goals feels frustrated and more so the more basic
the goal, like basic needs and basic interests;

-frustration may lead to aggression, turning inward as attitudes of

hatred, or outward as behaviour of verbal or physical violence -hatred
and violence may be directed towards the holders of the goals standing
in the way, but it is not always that "rational"; -violence is intended to
harm and hurt (including oneself).

J.Galtung
 Conflict

is both

A Threat and A Challenge

Conflict is a relationship between two or more parties
(individuals or groups) who have, or think they have,
incompatible goals

Violence consists of actions, words, attitudes, structures or

systems that cause physical, psychological, social or
environmental damage and/or prevent people from their
full human potential.

Conflict is Not Equal to Violence

Pervading Conflict Metaphors
Disease to be eradicated

How to weed out undesirable people that

causes conflicts

To win over the Other is to solve the

conflict
Three basic, and frequent, mistakes in conflict practice follow from
the failure to take into account the whole triangle:

The A-mistake, the liberal fallacy, focusing on attitudes only, making

people more loving (re- ligious), aware of their own mental baggage
(psychological). No contradiction is unravelled.

The B-mistake, the conservative fallacy, modifying behavior only by

putting a lid on aggres- sive action. No block disappears.

The C-mistake, the Marxist fallacy, focusing only on the

contradiction between labor and capital, regardless of costs to mind
and body. We know what happened: The negative energies in A and
B caught up with Soviet achievements, and destroyed them.
END
Conflict Escalation SLE
DEVELOPMENT of CONFLICT
Conflict Escalation

THE LADDER
 L1.
TENSION &
CRYSTALLIZATION

Stage 1 :
L2. SELF-HELP
DEBATE SOLUTION

L3.
CONFRONTATION
L4: Formation of
Coalitions

L5: Open Stage 2 :

Attack & WIN-LOSS
Loss of Face SOLUTION

L6: Threatening
Strategies
L7: Limited Destructive
Blows and Sanctions

Stage 3 :
L8: Destruction of LOSS-LOSS
the opponent SOLUTION

L9: Destruction &

Self-Destruction
 Conflict Escalation
9. Destruction and self-destruction
8. Destruction of the opponent
7. Limited destructive blows and sanctions
6. Threatening strategies
5. Open attack and loss of face
4. Formation of coalitions
3. Confrontation with a *fait accompli*
2. Debate
1. Tension and crystalization
Do we have a conflict or does the conflict have us?

The Austrian political scientist, economist and mediator

Friedrich Glasl described a ladder with nine rungs or levels
that typified the life cycle of disputes.

At the bottom end of the ladder comes the positions taken by

the parties; Rung 2 is the polarization of those positions, and
Rung 3 the deterioration of communication and the start of
mutually recriminatory acts by the parties.
Dr. Glasl identified Rung 3 as the limit of self-help in
resolving the dispute.

Then comes the Tipping Point when, as Glasl put it,we no
longer have a conflict, rather the conflict has us. This is
the stage at which litigation and arbitration replace self-help
as the primary resolution method. 
Rung 4 sees the deployment of tactics
Rung 5 is loss of face and increasingly personal
attacks.
Rung 6 represents the point at which threats become
strategic. Harmful blows follow on
Rung 7, supplemented on Rung 8 by the parties goals no
longer being confined to winning but also to
destroying. 
Rung 9, the parties enter a mutually-destructive abyss.


While every conflict is different from every other, Glasls
Escalation Ladder is helpful in focusing not merely on the
need tohandledisputes, but toleadthe way to an early
resolution and avoid an inevitable and uncontrollable
escalation.

Mature in-house counsel know that once they get past the
self-help limit at Rung 3 on the ladder, they are locked
into a spiral binding from which there is no easy way out.
Whether the resolution requires negotiation,
mediation or some other process, taking direct
control over the potential outcome and the
process to reach it requires strong doses of
leadership, vision, determination, innovation
and often, courage.
It is often the failure to transform
conflicts that leads to violence
 BEHAVIOR
e Violent behavior
d Nonviolence

ATTITUDES CONTRADICTIONS
ll The inner state of the parties /CONTEXT
the Contradiction underlying the conflict,
on). Being aware of the invisible aspects
the
of a conflict
Clash of goals
will by
held
help
the
us better
parties; the
Empathy
s to find a resolution. issues - the root conflict Creatiivity

n be used in conflicts that revolve around visible actions / behaviours

 ABC Traingle and Violence Triangle
Direct Violence
Behaviors

CONFLICT
Attitudes Contradictions
Deep Culture Deep Structure
Violence Violence
 How are Conflicts Handled Today?
Criminal court is after who is guilty

Civil court is after who is liable

The security sector is mainly after physical

safety and security

Government addresses mostly peace and order

( Lawyers is said to have won many cases but not conflicts?)
END
Conflict Transformation
Chocolate/orange exercise
Exercise
 5 Conflict Outcomes
(1,2) One party Prevails
-fight it out
-adjudicate
-rule of chance
(3) Flight (Withdraw)
-walk away
-destroy/give away
-freeze the chocolate/orange
(4) Compromise
-cut/divide etc.
(5) Transcendence (++++..)
-get one more chocolate
-bake a chocolate/orange flavored cake
-sprinkle the chocolate in your cookies
Everything (A Prevails) Violence: Adjudication
2 (0,1)

Transcendence:Dialogue 
5 (1,1) 





Something
Compromise:Negotiation
4 (1/2,1/2)



Flight (withdraw)
Nothing 3 (0,0) 


Nothing Something Everything (B Prevails)

Violence:Adjudication
1 (1,0)
Video CT Anemie
Why TRANSFORM?

Conflicts are generally not solved, resolved
or dissolved. 

To transform means the discourse of the
conflict has changed where vision has served
as a reference point, a new anchor. a new
reality of the conflict is created

Johan Galtung
 TRANSCEND
(GOING BEYOND)

&

TRANSFORM
(CREATION OF A NEW REALITY)
(by Johan Galtung)
 Conflict Transformation

The underlying problem: Contradiction between goals and
means (The ABC Triangle) 

There is a goal: a new, acceptable and sustainable reality
where the parties are at home with each other
(TRANSCEDENCE)


There is a practice linking problem and goal: Dialogue

with all partiesto map the conflict..to assess
legitimacy..to bridge legitimate goals by a creative jump
imagining a new reality with the contradiction transcended
and conflict transformed

(Empathy, Nonviolence, Creativity)

 The TRANSCEND Approach

DIAGNOSIS (Analysis, Evaluation)

PROGNOSIS (Forecast, Reflection)

THERAPY (Remedy, Action)

A C
Bridging
Legitimizing
Mapping
 Bridging legitimate goals

Legitimizing on laws, human rights and basic

needs (Minimum basic needs = survival, well-
being, identity and freedom)

Mapping the parties, goals and clashes

 Three Types of Conflict
J.Galtung
The Goals of all Parties Have (some) Legitimacy
The Goals of some Parties are Legitimate, of Others Not
The Goals of all Parties are Illegitimate

Goals are Legitimate based on Just Laws (Legal Aspects)

Or Basic Human Needs
Survival
Well-Being
Identity
Freedom
 Basic of Needs
Survival - as opposed to death
Well-Being - essentially to mean, food, clothing,
shelter, health

Identity - something to live for, not only from

Freedom - having some choices for the other three
 Conciliation is to Violence
Conciliation is the one to one dialogue with the
conflicting parties. The task of a conciliator is to
point out how the conflict has become so
damaging. Beware Conciliation without solution
is pacification

Mediation is to Conflict
Mediation is a third party facilitated process to
arrive at a mutually agreed solution. The
mediators task is to bring an enlightenment and
indicate but not propose a solution
Peace Present = the Problem is unresolved
Conflicts, the transformative approach is
Mediation

Peace Past = the Problem is Unprocessed

Trauma, the transformative approach is (re)
Conciliation

Peace Future = the Problem is Missing Project

and the transformative approach is Project
Building
The Mainstream Approach The TRANSCENDApproach

All parties around the table, One on one with the

Mediator=facilitator mediator=elicitator

Negotiation among parties; Dialogue; mutual

war by verbal means brainstorming

Compromise, often ambigous; Transcendence; Imaging

compatible with the old reality a new reality
 Ecuador-Peru Border Conflict
(Conflict over a contested 500km. Andes zone for
the past 30 years and 3 wars with no winner)

Win-Loose = A military victory of one annexing the

zone to a national territory
Compromise = Drawing a border, along a ceasefire
line
Negative Transcendence = Give the zone to a 3rd
party like the UN etc.
Positive Transcendence = A Bi-National Zone with
a Natural Park
Everything I need to know, I learned from Noahs Ark!

ONE: Dont miss the boat.

TWO: Remember that we are all in the same boat.
THREE: Plan ahead. It wasnt raining when Noah built the
Ark.
FOUR: Stay fit. When you are 60 years old, someone may
ask you to do something really big.
FIVE: Dont listen to critics; just get on with the job that
needs to be done.
SIX: Build your future on high ground.
SEVEN: For safetys sake, travel in pairs.
EIGHT: Speed isnt always an advantage. The snails
were on board with the cheetahs.

NINE: When you are stressed, float awhile.

TEN: Remember, the Ark was built by amateurs; the

Titanic by professionals.

ELEVEN: No matter the storm, when you are with God,

there is always a rainbow waiting.
TRANSCEND Theory of Peace

PEACE = Equity + Harmony

Trauma + Conflict