Director’s Column
These are unsettling and uncertain times. Earlier this year the media called ICAR to line up commentators on the war. This “preemptive strike,” violence done to prevent violence, is an echo of a cold war strategy at a geopolitical moment when war is anything but cold. The hatred and fear that have crisscrossed national borders and cultural communities have left a contrail of righteous arguments and defense strategies that, in turn, fuels divisions between “us and them.” If there was ever a time for conflict resolution, it is now. However, it is, paradoxically, very, very difficult to present conflict resolution as a legitimate option. And we know the way this conversation would go:
• There is no negotiation with “terrorists.”
• Talking is a sign of weakness; besides, we have been “talking” with Iraq since the last war, and they have not listened.
• Iraqi people want U.S. occupation.
• Saddam Hussein is evil and therefore this conflict is not political, but moral. We must take a stand, even if some of our allies are afraid to stand with us.
And the list goes on…and it is easy to be discouraged at this juncture. However, as we say in our field, this crisis is also an opportunity for us to practice our science/art. The fact that conflict resolution is not seen as an option, the way it slides off the arguments for war, is evidence that we in the field, have more work to do: getting out the word by building relationships with those who would advocate war and preemptive strike policies, developing knowledge about how to engage political leaders and regimes in a way that evolves relationships and increases understanding (or as von Forester would say, “standing under” the other’s language game), building tools for assessing relational risk so strategists can allocate attention and resources effectively, and improving our methods for documenting change in cases where conflict resolution has proved effective. As a field, we can take responsibility for increasing the potential for conflict resolution to become a viable option for leaders who must navigate relationships with others they fear and dread. At ICAR, we are working on hard questions and undertaking new initiatives, all in an effort to continue to do our share in developing the field of conflict resolution.
• In the past year, ICAR faculty members identified a set of research initiatives that broadly frames the contours of the research they see as core to the development of the field. This research plan provides the basis not only for grants and contracts, but also for the choices ICAR makes in selecting visiting scholars and institutional partnerships.
• ICAR’s Curriculum Committee has undertaken an effort to update the curriculum, identifying the streams of theory, research, and practice that combine to build competency in conflict resolution. This is part of an effort to enhance the integration of these three domains and nourish our ability to function as a scholar-practitioner community.
• ICAR has a new electronic learning environment where students, faculty, alumni, and friends can interact in discussion forums. These forums will enable information in the community to be archived, and will enhance the reflectivity of our community: folks are more likely to take the role of the other, as they reflect on their comments, before posting, precisely because the conversation is archived. Additionally, these forums offer opportunities for connection to those who are not able to attend working groups or other kinds of ICAR events, augmenting but not replacing all important face-to-face interaction.
• ICAR is launching a new certificate in Conflict Analysis and Resolution in September 2003; we hope to reach those interested in policy, planning, and resource allocation who impact local and global identity-based conflicts.
• ICAR is launching an undergraduate major in Conflict Analysis and Resolution in collaboration with George Mason’s College of Arts and Sciences. This major will hopefully function as outreach to a broad population of students, enabling them to build skills they can apply to any profession they enter. The program is scheduled to begin September 2004.
• ICAR continues to work with stakeholders toward a master plan for the development of Point of View, the property that was donated to ICAR by the Lynch family for the creation of a research and conference center. This center will become a place for holding meetings, hosting conferences, and conducting research that contributes to transforming deep-rooted conflicts. The master plan is slated for completion in late spring 2003. ICAR is making an effort to focus on research that contributes to the development of the field and its related practices, to review and improve its curricular integration, to expand and enliven ICAR’s community, and to significantly increase the reach of conflict resolution in undergraduate as well as professional populations. And through Point of View, ICAR can become a site not only for research and training, but also for convening parties to deep-rooted conflicts. In this way, ICAR will enhance the loop between scholarship and practice. We are doing this work in the context of a significant budget crisis. George Mason University as a whole is struggling to maintain funding. Despite cuts in funding in 2002 and 2003, and projected cuts in 2004, growth at ICAR continues. In 2002 external funding grew significantly, increasing the base for research. Through gifts, grants, and contracts, we hope to continue to augment funding for research and student support. Thanks to the students, faculty, and friends of ICAR, we are yet able to engage in this work. As the United States is at war, ICAR is doing what it can to support and enhance the development of the field of conflict resolution. We welcome feedback and questions on our projects, as well as on the content of this newsletter…so if you are inclined, please reach out. This is a time when we all need to know that we are not alone in our efforts, and we do know that there are many who share our commitment to this field.
These kinds of responsibilities, for example, prevented Barry Hart and Lisa Schirch from attending. They both work for Eastern Mennonite University, and are currently working on projects in Ghana. Hugo van der Merwe and Jaco Cilliers are now back in South Africa working for nongovernmental organizations in the field. Amr Abdalla did not attend due to consulting responsibilities in Rwanda, and Simona Shironi, who teaches at Evergreen College, was getting ready for the first conference of the Peace and Justice Studies Association. Over that same weekend, Moorad Mooradian received an award from the Armenian Students Association in Rhode Island that prevented him from attending. Vicky Rast was scheduled to present a paper on “Transforming the Military Mind: Challenges to the American Way of War,” but had to withdraw at the last minute due to pressing family matters. Before starting the symposium proper, the attendees held a roundtable conversation with ICAR’s new director, Sara Cobb.
It was followed by a roundtable conversation on teaching and learning moderated by doctoral alumna Adrienne Kaufman, who now teaches at Augsberg University. Two additional roundtables were held over the weekend. One, chaired by Susan Allen Nan, focused on practice in the conflict resolution field. After spending two years at the Carter Center in Atlanta, Nan is now back in Fairfax working as a consultant. During the final roundtable, Chris Mitchell led a discussion during which the attendees looked back on their ICAR years and shared some thoughts on where the experience and the years since then took them professionally.
The main event of the weekend, however, was the presentation of papers by 12 of the attendees. Some of these sessions were attended by current ICAR faculty members who all expressed their satisfaction about the quality and the variety of the research and writing that is being undertaken by ICAR doctoral alumni. Chris Mitchell noted that “it was a delight to see one’s professional replacements so interested and passionate about what they were doing.” These Mitchell “replacements” presented their latest work—ranging from papers based on dissertations to more recent writing on what became their areas of research since they left ICAR to become professionals in the field.
Somewhat to everyone’s surprise, a theme did emerge from these presentations. As you may note from some of the paper summaries below, in just about every case the research and practice described in these papers were about attempts at connecting with or translating conflict resolution theory and practice to other organizations or areas of practice. For example, Nimer Beriker explored whether conflict resolution can be a diplomatic tool for ”liberal international relations.” Mary Jo Larson’s work with women who are leadership figures in third world countries takes conflict resolution to ecological negotiations.
Catherine Barnes and Susan Allen Nan also adhered to this theme—both in a sense convey the idea to proponents of Track One (official negotiations) that there is a need to intersect and coordinate better with Track Two (public participation) in peace processes. As is the case with any academic gathering there is always the question of what was gained, learned, or achieved. Other than the fact that the weekend rekindled old friendships, and allowed “older” and “newer” ICAR Ph.D.s to get acquainted with each other, it also established a network that can now be used for ongoing contact and collaboration. Most importantly, a number of attendees expressed a need for an annual ICAR symposium to involve the whole ICAR family of current and former students, faculty, and sustainers—an idea that ICAR director, Sara Cobb, actively supports.
A number of the participants remarked on the supportive spirit in which this first event took place. In many ways it became a celebration of the doctoral program and the people who started it, both as faculty and students. The one name that was consistently mentioned in both the academic presentations and in personal remarks was that of Jim Laue, ICAR’s beloved faculty member who passed away nearly a decade ago. In addition to many of us knowing Laue and conveying expressions of how much he is missed, it was noticeable that we had another common bond because of our years as ICAR doctoral students. What “the ICAR experience” was or became for each of us is different and unique.
However, as Chris Mitchell noted in an e-mail note following the event, the ICAR experience facilitated an ease of communication between all of us. As Mitchell put it (in reference also to ICAR’s somewhat meager first facilities in a prefabricated module on campus where the Johnson Center now stands): “Maybe we all share something more than a memory of being together in a leaky old hut and conversations with Jim Laue.”
Our only disappointment was that Mother Nature rained on our end-of symposium- plans—a Point-of-View picnic. Hopefully, by next year’s symposium event we will be able to visit this beautiful spot on the Occoquan River in bright sunshine. Clearly Point-of-View provides a challenge and an opportunity to ICAR, its graduates, and supporters—to make the new center a really powerful influence for good on the new millennium with all its troubles and conflicts.