The Conflict Expert

World politics is currently inspiring many of my blog posts. What follows is not political commentary but instead my own views on where many of the attempts to bring about peace in the Ukraine and Israel, are going wrong. I’m also going to discuss how you can take that analysis and apply it to your own conflicts and avoid the mistakes the most powerful people on the planet, seem to be making.

In the complex realm of international conflict resolution, achieving agreements that satisfy all stakeholders is a formidable challenge. World leaders and their negotiators often only tell the public their positions to give the impression of strength. But behind closed doors, they will be discussing their interests, limits, allegiances and needs in the safety of secrecy. They will often use shuttle diplomacy to relay private messages and be careful about the information they disclose. This allows them to project certain images to their voting base (i.e. we never give into our enemies; we are right; I’m a strong leader and you need me) and at the same time, make their discussions with the other side, as productive as possible.

As every conflict resolution practitioner knows, you can only bring about durable peace if you involve in mediation every stakeholder to the dispute. Together, they can create their own resolutions that take into account their respective interests. Leaving a party out of those discussions makes them feel excluded, ignored, unheard and this may in itself undermine talks and the result. Resolutions that are imposed by a third party may work in the short term, especially if threatened, but are unlikely to put a conflict to rest permanently.

This is important to remember. All stakeholders have positions and their own perspectives. They also have interests, needs, vulnerabilities and desires and if you can find out which ones you share, you could make progress in finding creative solutions that bring about durable peace and empowerment.

The USA, however, isn’t currently willing to involve the Ukraine in talks with Russia. Given that their conflict relates to the Ukraine’s territorial integrity, President Zelenskyy is unhappy with this development and has already stated that any resolution made without him will not be acceptable.

European leaders echoed this sentiment, asserting that Europe must have a central role in negotiations.

In the workplace, a manager will recognise that a dispute between two team members affects the whole team. It may even ripple out across the company and its international offices. That needs to be addressed and assessed and all parties need to have their say in how they see the dispute and how they want it resolved. To be successful, the manager should at the very least, hear the view of the two team members, the wider team, and others in the company affected by the conflict. Anybody whose interests are at stake because of this conflict should have a say in how it is resolved. Imposing solutions without doing this will undermine the manager’s credibility and will only lead to more disgruntled people.

Balancing Power Dynamics: The Gaza Ceasefire

The ceasefire in Gaza faced challenges this month when Hamas accused Israel of violating their truce terms. President Trump demanded the release of all hostages, threatening severe consequences otherwise. Prime Minister Netanyahu echoed these demands, warning of resuming intense military operations if Hamas did not comply

This scenario underscores the importance of power dynamics in negotiations. While leverage can be a tool to enforce compliance, over-reliance on threats can backfire, leading to resistance and undermining trust. Research indicates that threats often fail to achieve the desired outcome in peace negotiations.

President Trump also stated that the U.S. would take over Gaza. This statement was met with worldwide condemnation as many international lawyers viewed it as tantamount to ethnic cleansing. As well as eroding the trust of Hamas – and several other nations in the region – that peace was an intended outcome of the ceasefire, it also underlines the importance of cultural and historical sensitives in the context of any conflict. From the Palestinian perspective, Gaza is their homeland and not an opportunity for economic transformation. From the Israeli perspective, some view it as forming part of a Jewish homeland. I do not know who is right. However, removing Palestinians from what they consider as their home will only enliven their conflict and entrench it further in the next generation.

If you’re going to mediate a dispute, you need to pay very careful attention to your language. Any perception of bias or prejudice for one side or the other will undermine the process. It will destroy trust and possibly, your credibility. The historical context of a dispute is important as it could involve high emotion and generational traumas that are very sensitive. Your communication needs to reflect that, acknowledge it and respect it. This conflict is highly emotive and has polarised us all- understandably so. Which is why it is vital that mediators do not pass any judgment and simply use constructive communication to help both sides come to an agreement.

What are your thoughts? Do you think solutions can be reached ? I would love to read your views.