Susan Allen–Scholar Peacemaker-on the Doug Noll Show

On this edition of the Doug Noll Show we will have a conversation with scholar peacemaker Susan Allen Nan, assistant professor at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University. Susan’s academic focus is on reflective practice and research that emerges from practice contexts. In addition, she has engaged long-term in conflict resolution in the Caucasus, as well as contributing to a variety of conflict resolution initiatives in Eastern Europe, Eurasia, the Caribbean, South America, and Africa.

I tell Susan that I am not familiar with the conflict in the Republic of Georgia with the people of South Ossetia. Susan tells us that after the fall of the Soviet Union, the people of South Ossetia, like many people in the former Soviet Union, sought a greater voice in their government. Conflict during the formation of the Republic of Georgia centered on languages, ethnicity, power-sharing, and resource-sharing. Violence broke out at times, culminating in the Russian incursion into South Ossetia two years ago.

As a professor at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, Susan was contacted by a visiting delegation of South Ossetians. From that initial call, the Point of View workshops developed between representatives of the Republic of Georgia and South Ossetia. Susan has facilitated seven workshops between the parties focused on confidence building measures.

I ask Susan if the Point of View workshops were a form of Track Two diplomacy. Susan says that she considers the workshops to be Track 1 1/2 diplomacy because several of the Georgian representatives hold official capacities within the Georgian government. Although the workshops are informal and unofficial, there is a practical reality to having decision-makers participate in the process. The South Ossetians generally are civilian thought leaders.

Susan tells us that she structures the workshops as two or three day events. The workshops are designed to exchange information, talk about practical steps that can be taken to meet the basic needs of the people in South Ossetia and Georgia, and to talk about and plan for next steps. Between 16 and 18 participants attend the workshops, which are conducted in Russian. They have been held in places as diverse as Alexandria Virginia and Istanbul, Turkey. Susan expects the workshops to continue as long as they provide a vehicle for dialogue and conversation between the Georgians and the South Ossetians.

Susan and I talk about the Global Peace Index. The United States ranks 85^th out of 149 countries, indicating that based on 23 indicators used in the GPI, the U.S. not a particularly peaceful country. The indicators include objectively measurable factors such as number of people imprisoned, weapons in society, number of people killed in external conflicts, and size of the military. Susan advises us that a visit to the website is insightful.

Much of Susan’s academic interest is in reflective practice. I asked Susan to describe reflective practice, and she tells us that it is the process of understanding one’s self as a peacemaker in order to understand those in conflict. We talk about how to go about reflective practice and how she teaches reflective practice to her students.

In addition to being an international peacemaker and scholar, Susan takes her peacemaking practice home with her. She describes her living situation in a co-housing community of 56 families. All of the decisions of the community are made by consensus, and learning about consensus decision-making has been an interesting journey in peacemaking. Susan tells us the consensus occurs when everybody affected by a decision has an opportunity to speak and has no serious objection to the decision. The concept of objection has grown in her community to prevent people from holding decisions hostage because of non-fundamental disagreement. Today, if a person objects to a decision, he or she must explain why the decision violates the core values of the community. Then, at least two other members of the community must agree that the decision may violate the core values of the community. Then, and only then, will the community continue to discuss the problem and its solutions. I comment that this is an interesting and profitable way to permit objection and consensus-decision-making without being held hostage to personal differences of opinion. Susan tells us that the experiment is on-going, and that she continues to learn to be a better peacemaker.