When destructive conflicts persist for long periods of time and resist every attempt to resolve them constructively, they can appear to take on a life of their own. We label these intractable conflicts. They can occur between individuals (as in prolonged marital disputes) and within or between groups (as evidenced in the antiabortion/pro-choice conflict) or nations. Over time, they tend to attract the involvement of many parties, become increasingly complicated, and give rise to a threat to basic human needs or values. Typically they result in negative outcomes for the parties involved, ranging from mutual alienation and contempt to atrocities such as murder, rape, and genocide.
Today, of the roughly seventy geopolitical conflicts that the International Crisis Group is monitoring, fifteen have lasted between one and ten years, twelve have persisted between eleven and twenty years, and forty-three have dragged on for more than twenty years. This last category of long-enduring conflicts is what I refer to as the 5 percent of intractable conflicts (Coleman, 2011).
In a series of studies analyzing the Correlates of War database, a source of information on all interstate interactions around the world from 1816 to 2001, Paul Diehl and Gary Goertz (Diehl and Goertz, 2000; Klein, Goertz, and Diehl, 2006) have been exploring the dynamics of ongoing competitive relationships between states that employ either the threat or the use of military force. Of the 875 rivalries they have identified over the time span of the database, they estimate that between 5 and 8 percent become enduring, persisting more than twenty-five years with an average duration of thirty-seven years. From 1816 to 2001, approximately 115 enduring rivalries have inflicted havoc in the geopolitical sphere.
Although the percentage of enduring rivalries in terms of all rivalries is small (5 percent), these ongoing disputes are disproportionately harmful, destructive, and expensive. Together they have accounted for 49 percent of all international wars since 1816, including World Wars I and II, and have been associated with 76 percent of all civil wars waged from 1946 to 2004 (DeRouen and Bercovitz, 2008). These protracted conflicts include those today in Israel-Palestine, Kashmir, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Colombia, and Cyprus. They cause extraordinary levels of misery, destabilize countries and entire regions, inflict terrible human suffering, and deplete the international community of critical resources such as humanitarian aid and disaster funding.
This chapter provides a practical overview of our current understanding of intractable conflict. It has six sections. It begins with a basic definition of intractable conflicts that distinguishes them from more manageable forms of conflict. It then outlines five common paradigms for addressing these types of conflicts. The third section outlines a variety of component parts of intractable conflict that scholars have identified as sources of their intransigence. Next, a dynamical-systems model of intractable conflict is presented, which helps to integrate our understanding of how the many subcomponents combine to foster intractability. The next section offers general guidelines for intervention, and the chapter concludes with a discussion of implications for training intervenors and disputants.
DEFINING INTRACTABLE CONFLICT
Intractable conflicts are essentially conflicts that persist because they appear impossible to resolve. Scholars have used labels such as deeply rooted conflict (Burton 1987), protracted social conflict (Azar, 1986), moral conflict (Pearce and Littlejohn 1997), and enduring rivalries (Goertz and Diehl, 1993) to depict similar phenomena. Kriesberg (2005) stresses three dimensions that differentiate intractable from tractable conflicts: their persistence, destructiveness, and resistance to resolution.
Most intractable conflicts do not begin as such but become so as escalation, hostile interactions, sentiment, and time change the quality of the conflict. They can be triggered and emerge from a wide variety of factors and events but often involve important issues such as moral and identity differences, high-stakes resources, or struggles for power and self-determination (Burgess and Burgess, 1996). Intractable conflicts are typically associated with cycles of high and low intensity and destructiveness, are often costly in human and economic terms, and can become pervasive, affecting even mundane aspects of disputants’ lives (Kriesberg, 1999; Coleman, 2003).
APPROACHES TO ADDRESSING INTRACTABLE CONFLICT: FIVE PARADIGMS
Over the past several decades, the literature on social conflict has put forth a large array of approaches for prevention, intervention, and reconstruction work with protracted social conflicts. This section outlines five major paradigms employed currently in framing research and practice in this area: realism, human relations, pathology, postmodernism, and systems (see Coleman, 2004). These paradigms are, in effect, clusters of approaches that vary internally across a myriad of important dimensions and overlap to some degree with approaches from other paradigms. The five paradigms are presented in order from most to least influential in the field today.
The Realist Paradigm
Historically this perspective has been the dominant paradigm for the study of war and peace in history, politics, and international affairs. Essentially a political metaphor, it views protracted conflicts as dangerous, high-stakes games that are won through strategies of domination, control, and countercontrol (see Schelling, 1960). Although they vary, approaches of this nature tend to assume that resources and power are always scarce, that human beings are basically flawed (always capable of producing evil) and have a will to dominate, and that one’s opponents in conflict at any point may become aggressive. Consequently, they present an inherently conflictual world with uncertainties regarding the present and future intentions of one’s adversary, leading to risk-aversive decision making. Thus, intractable conflicts are thought to result from rational, strategic choices made under the conditions of the “real politics” of hatred, manipulation, dominance, and violence in the world. These conflicts are seen as “real conflicts” of interest and power that exist objectively due to scarcities in the world and are exacerbated by such psychological phenomena as fear, mistrust, and misperception. In this context, power is seen as both paramount and corrupting, and real change is believed to be brought about primarily through power-coercive command-and-control strategies.
The realist approach highlights the need for strong actions to provide the protections necessary and requires that we find effective methods for minimizing acts of aggression and bolstering a sense of social and institutional stability, while at the same time confronting the underlying patterns of intergroup dominance and oppression that are the bedrock of many conflicts. Examples of this approach include the use of direct force, Machiavellian approaches to statesmanship, game-theoretical strategies of collective security and deterrence, and “jujitsu” (redirecting the force of an opponent against itself) tactics of community organizing (Alinsky, 1971). They also include acts of stabilization to offset uncertainties, such as establishing clear and fair rules of law, a trustworthy government and judiciary, fair and safe voting practices, and a free press. In some settings, they involve activism to offset power imbalances, including raising awareness of specific types of injustice within both high-power and low-power communities; helping to organize, support, and empower marginalized groups; and bringing outside pressure to bear on the dominant groups for progressive reforms (Deutsch, 1985).
The emphasis given by the realist paradigm to the dangerous power politics and anarchy operating within the context of protracted conflicts is crucial. It highlights basic human concerns over threats to security, stability, and justice that lie at the heart of most experiences of protracted conflict. In turn, its myriad theories and approaches offer many insights and techniques for working politically in such systems. However, this orientation is not without its drawbacks. Its assumptions of rational choice are “economic” in nature (reasoning through efficient cost-benefit analyses), which, although valid under certain conditions, fails to account for other types of human reasoning and action (such as social, legal, moral, and political forms of reasoning) that function differently and have a larg
e impact on decisions and outcomes in conflict settings (see Diesing, 1962, for an extensive discussion). In addition, its “preventative orientation” to managing conflict (see Higgins, 1997) leads to a focus on short-term security needs, worst-case scenarios, and an overreliance on strategies of threat and coercion (see Levy, 1996). Furthermore, its core competitive assumptions regarding the nature of power and security, the availability of resources, and the inevitability of the other’s aggression can limit a party’s response options and typically results in competitive and escalatory dynamics and self-fulfilling prophesies that foster further entrenchment in the conflict (see Deutsch, 1973, 2000).
The Human Relations Paradigm
An alternative to the realist paradigm emerged primarily through the social-psychological study of conflict and stresses the vital role that human social interactions play in triggering, perpetuating, and resolving conflict. Based on a social metaphor, its most basic image of intractable conflict is of destructive relationships in which parties are locked in an increasingly hostile and vicious escalatory spiral and from which there appears to be no escape. With some variation, these approaches view human nature as mixed, with people having essentially equal capacities for good and evil, and they stress the importance of different external conditions for eliciting either altruism and cooperation or aggression and violence. This orientation also identifies fear, distrust, misunderstanding, and hostile interactions between disputants and between their respective communities as primary obstacles to constructive engagement. Thus, subjective psychological processes are seen as central as well, significantly influencing disputants’ perceptions, expectations, and behavioral responses and therefore largely determining the course of conflict (see Deutsch, 1973). From this perspective, change is thought to be brought about most effectively through the planful targeting of people, communities, and social conditions and is best mobilized through normative—reeducative processes of influence (Fisher, 1994).
The human relations approach promotes a sense of hope and possibility under difficult circumstances. It stresses that we recognize the central importance of human contact and interaction between members of the various communities for both maintaining and transforming protracted conflicts. Human relations procedures include various methods of integrative negotiation, mediation, constructive controversy, and models of alternative dispute resolution systems design. In addition, scholars have found that establishing integrated social structures, including ethnically integrated business associations, trade unions, professional groups, political parties, and sports clubs, is one of the most effective ways of making intergroup conflict manageable (Varshney, 2002). Other variations include interactive problem-solving workshops (Kelman, 1999), town meeting methodologies, focused social imaging (Boulding, 1986), and antibias education.
The focus of the human relations paradigm on the promotion of positive moments of human contact between deadly enemies brings, if nothing else, hope to situations deemed by many to be hopeless. Even its less optimistic forms offer visions of the future of the conflict that are less violent, less traumatic, and well worth working for. Such seeds of hope can be priceless to a community locked in despair. In addition, the many procedures developed through the years for inducing cooperation, analyzing human needs, and fostering tolerance or reconciliation are creative and impressive and offer genuinely practical tools for the repair of even severely damaged relations.
Nevertheless, relationally focused strategies of intervention, when not complemented by other methods, often fall well short of their objectives in hazardous situations of protracted conflict. Although overstated, they have been criticized by some realists as “at best well-intentioned, at worst soft and driven by sentimentalism, and for the most part irrelevant” (Lederach, 1997). They typically work best in situations where there is an a priori acceptance of the values of reciprocity, human equality, shared community, fallibility, and nonviolence (Deutsch, 2000). Contexts that are void of these norms, and the laws and institutions that regulate them present substantial challenges to the constructive use of relational strategies. For example, in societies where male superiority goes unquestioned, the use of cooperative strategies to address protracted gender conflicts may in fact perpetuate the oppressive quality of gender relations in that context. Finally, most human relations approaches are based on the values and assumptions of scientific humanism and planned social change (Fisher, 1994). These values and assumptions define the boundaries of these approaches and limit their applicability in situations where such values are not shared.
The Pathology Paradigm
This view pictures intractable social conflicts as pathological diseases—as infections or cancers of the body politic that can spread and afflict the system and therefore need to be correctly diagnosed, treated, and contained. A medical metaphor, it views its patient, the conflict system, as a complicated system made up of various interrelated parts that exist as an objective reality and can be analyzed and understood directly and treated accordingly. These patients are thought to be treated most effectively by outside experts who have the knowledge, training, and distance from the patient necessary to accurately diagnose and address the problem. This perspective views humans and social systems as basically health-oriented entities that, due to certain predispositions, neglect, or exposure to toxins in the environment, can develop pathological illnesses or destructive tendencies. Treatment of these pathologies, particularly when they are severe, is seen as both an art and a science, with many courses of treatment that can bring their own negative consequences to the system. Although not as common as the realist and human relations paradigms, the medical model is particularly popular with agencies, community-based organizations, and nongovernmental organizations working in settings of protracted conflict.
A classic example of the medical approach is Volkan’s tree model (Volkan, 1998), which recommends working collectively with communities in conflict to unearth the “hidden transcripts” (hidden resistances), the “hot” locations (symbolic sites), and the chosen traumas and glories that maintain oppositional group identities. This diagnostic phase is followed by a series of psychopolitical dialogues between influential representatives of relevant groups, who then work toward a “vaccination” campaign to reduce poisonous emotions at the local community, governmental, and societal levels. Other activities aimed at containing the spread of pathologies of violence in communities include strategies of nonviolence and many types of preventative diplomacy (such as early warning systems), crisis diplomacy, peace enforcement (conflict mitigation), and peacekeeping. In addition, this approach is associated with a wide variety of activities for postconflict reconstruction, including rebuilding damaged infrastructure, currency stabilization, demining, creating legitimate and integrated governments, demilitarizing and demobilizing soldiers, resettling displaced peoples, and establishing awareness of and support for basic human rights (Wessells and Monteiro, 2001).
Understanding and treating the pathological aspects of protracted conflicts has unquestionable value. The needs to contain high levels of tension and violence, unearth and assuage destructive, unconscious motives and hidden tensions and agendas, and address toxic emotions, trauma, and societal-level damage are straightforward indeed. However, once again, this worldview is limited in its capacity to manage protracted conflict unaided. For example, the amelioration of tension and violence in protracted conflicts is often only temporary and superficial. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Peace is not merely the absence of tension, but the presence of justice.” Although hostilities between people may be temporarily controlled by the acceptance of a cease-fire or peacekeeping troops, the conflict may move no closer to resolution and may in fact become more intractable as a result of the disengagement of the parties (Fisher, 1997). In addition, the approach of identifying and exposing covert motives and interests rests on the straightforward assumption that doing so is good—that it is both possible and constructive to unearth such moti
ves, that people have the capacity and support to tolerate such information when it is forthcoming (about themselves, their government, their businesses, and so on), and that people, corporations, and governments will then have the motivation and the capacity to reform. These assumptions, although hopeful, are often inaccurate. Finally, this orientation is based on a deficit model, with a focus on that which is wrong or pathological in a conflict system. While important, this orientation often neglects focusing on positive responses such as resiliency or altruistic and ethical behavior under difficult circumstances, and it can foster a negativity bias in our understanding of and responses to the phenomena.
The Postmodern Paradigm
This perspective portrays intractable conflicts as rooted in the ways we make sense of the world. A communications metaphor, its most basic image is of conflict as a story—a narrative or myth that provides a context for interpretation of actions and events, both past and present, that largely shapes our experience of ongoing conflicts. Thus, conflict comes from the way parties subjectively define a situation and interact with one another to construct a sense of meaning, responsibility, and value in that setting. Intractable conflicts, then, are less the result of scarce resources, incendiary actions of parties, or struggles for limited positions of power than they are a sense of reality, created and maintained through a long-term process of meaning making through social interaction (Lederach, 1997; Pearce and Littlejohn, 1997). This worldview highlights a form of power as meaning control: an insidious primary form of power that is often quietly embedded in the assumptions and beliefs that disputing parties take for granted. It suggests that it is primarily through assumptions about what is unquestionably “right” in a given context that different groups develop and maintain incommensurate worldviews and conflicts persist. Thus, change is believed to be brought about by dragging these assumptions into the light of day through critical reflection, dialogue, and direct confrontation, thus increasing disputant awareness of the complexity of reality, our almost arbitrary understanding of it, and the need for change.
The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed) Page 104