|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 12/99
Conflict resolution Training for Military Peacekeepers
Paper presented at the INCORE Conference on
Training and Preparation of Military and Civilian Peacekeepers
University of Ulster
June 13th-15th, 1996.
Table of Contents
INCORE hosted a major conference on the Training and Preparation of Military and Civilian Peacekeepers at its headquarters on 13-15 June 1996. The conference drew a wide audience of peacekeepers, policymakers, NGO representatives, academics and young researchers as well as a range of people actively involved in the training and preparation of peacekeepers. Among those to address the conference were two former commanders of the UNPROFOR operation in the Former Yugoslavia; Lt Gen Satish Nambiar (Retd) of the Indian Defence Forces and Lt Gen Lars-Eric Wahlgren (Retd) of the Swedish Army. The conference was preceded by the formal launch of INCORE at its new headquarters, Aberfoyle House, adjacent to the University of Ulster’s Magee Campus. Lt General Nambiar performed this ceremony.
One of the most engaging contributions to the conference came from Greg Tillett. His paper on “Conflict Resolution Training for Military Peacekeepers” was based on his experiences of working with Australian Defence Forces personnel prior to their deployment on peacekeeping operations. He argues that all soldiers embarking on peacekeeping missions should be equipped with a knowledge of basic conflict resolution techniques and need to understand the pacific roles which modern peacekeeping operations expect them to perform. He went on to outline a standard framework for training in conflict resolution which has been successfully developed in co-operation with the Australian Defence Forces. It recognises that soldiers are not only likely to experience conflict when serving on their mission, but also at the pre-departure and return phases of the mission. The conflict resolution training framework introduces participants to the basic principles and practices of conflict resolution, analytical problem solving and application of conflict resolution. The conference paper drew a very positive response, particularly because of its practical applications and a clarity which is often lacking in literature on conflict resolution. This prompted INCORE to publish an expanded version as an Occasional Paper.
The conference coincided with the launch of the report of a research project on the Training and Preparation of Military and Civilian Peacekeepers. The Executive Summary of the report is included in this Occasional Paper.
Post-Cold War conflicts and threats to international security are becoming increasingly complex and demand ever more elaborate peacekeeping operations from the United Nations. Rather than simply keeping the warring parties apart, PKOs increasingly need pre-conflict preventive and post-conflict peace-building elements. The new demands being made on PKOs call for greater attention to be paid to the training and preparation of peacekeepers (both civilian and military) and to the widening range of ancillary support functions essential for the success of a peacekeeping mission.
INCORE was asked by the United Nations University to examine the issues related to the training and preparation of UN peacekeepers (military and civilian), and report back with recommended improvements for peacekeeper training. Crucially, the recommendations are based on the opinions and experiences of peacekeepers themselves. Those actually charged with implementing UN mandates on the ground, and who risk their lives for the mandates, often express the view that their voices are unheard. This report is based on the vast body of experience which has been accumulated by peacekeepers.
The part of the project relating to military peacekeeping draws on the experiences of Sweden and Ireland: countries with a long history of contributions to UN PKOs. Both Sweden and Ireland have contributed to the development of norms associated with ‘good peacekeeping’, and have also concerned themselves with the question of how the training of peacekeepers can be improved. During detailed interviews, peacekeepers from both countries were asked about their motives for joining peacekeeping operations, their views on the training and preparation they received, their reflections on their peacekeeping experience, and their suggestions for the improvement of training and peacekeeping. The interviews resulted in a frank and honest overview of contemporary peacekeeping. The interviewees pointed towards the need for specific peacekeeper training in addition to regular military training. They also raised a number of issues salient to the future shape of UN peacekeeping in general such as the confused interface between civilian and military peacekeepers, and tensions between peacekeepers of different nationalities.
Civilian peacekeepers are often drawn from diverse backgrounds. Furthermore, they are often entrusted with a wide range of tasks and perform their duties alone or as part of ad hoc units. As a result, the training and preparation of civilian peacekeepers raises a number of specific problems such as the location of the training, the frequent need for a pool of trained civilian personnel, and the relevance of the training to a particular mission. The Austrian based ‘International Civilian Peacekeeping and Peace-building Training Program’ (IPT) adopts a comprehensive approach to the training of civilian peacekeepers and also offers a unique opportunity to study civilian training. A questionnaire targeted at individuals who had completed the IPT programme helped frame recommendations for improvements in the training and preparation of civilian peacekeepers.
The central message of the military part of the report is the importance of a holistic approach to the training of peacekeepers; all personnel, regardless of rank and function on a PKO, must receive specific training. Normal military training is not enough. Contact skills are of particular importance. The establishment of comprehensive and long-term support services for peacekeepers and their families are also deemed essential, particularly given the stressful nature of many of the activities associated with modern PKOs. As the training of peacekeepers currently varies from country to country, common standards of preparation would enhance the cohesion and effectiveness of all PKOs. It is strongly recommended that personnel from one country participate in the training programmes of other countries. A centralisation of the preparation of peacekeepers for a particular mission is also important to avoid problems of poor co-ordination at the moment of deployment.
The study of the training and preparation of civilian peacekeepers points to the need for comprehensive and standardised training programmes that take account of the requirements of modern multi-dimensional PKOs. Co-ordination between concerned training institutions should be developed—possibly by way of a global database—in order to build up a pool of trained civilian personnel. Selection procedures should also become more sophisticated, to emphasise the quality of the personnel and their suitability for a particular mission. The training programmes themselves should pay increasing attention to the substantive functions to be carried out in the field; normal professional training and experience is insufficient and must be complemented by mission and function specific training.
Conflict Resolution Training for Military Peacekeepers
Military personnel undertaking peacekeeping operations face a range of challenges, some of them arising from the styles of behaviour that have often been learned in traditional military training (for example, the use of abrupt orders; the threat or use of force to exercise power; the ability to identify the status and potential power of any other person). In peacekeeping operations, personnel may or may not have any power (including the use of weapons) to coerce, may have no way of readily identifying the status or potential power of any person with whom they are dealing, may have very limited ability to communicate accurately with local residents, and will often be subject to instructions which require them to act in a policing rather than a military role. 1
It is sometimes suggested that military personnel preparing for peacekeeping operations need to be “untrained” in military behaviour and retrained into a peacekeeping role. This is virtually impossible, given that the time available for peacekeeping training is unlikely to be adequate for such re-education. Nor is it necessary. Effective peacekeeping training can, and should, build onto conventional military training, facilitating the development of additional, rather than contradictory, skills and styles of behaviour.
The need for specialist training of peacekeeping forces has been identified in a number of recent evaluations of the United Nations‘ peacekeeping operations, as have the detrimental effects of inadequately trained forces. A report of an in-depth evaluation of peacekeeping operations concluded: “Member States are responsible for training their national civilian, police and military personnel for participation in peace-keeping missions. Increasingly, however, Member States offer troops without the necessary equipment and training.” 2
Apparent contradictions between a conventional military approach and a peacekeeping approach can and do arise. Effective training for peacekeeping forces should address these explicitly. Indeed, explicitly identifying and exploring potential conflicts between the traditional role of the soldier and the relatively new role of the peacekeeper, and working on appropriate means of resolving such conflicts, is an important part of peacekeeper preparation. For some military personnel, participation in peacekeeping operations—often referred to critically by them as “policing”—challenges their original motivations for a military career, and brings into question their capacity to fulfil new responsibilities which appear to lie beyond their military training or personal resources.
Peacekeeping forces will, virtually by definition, be in situations of conflict (between others) and inevitably become involved in conflict (with others, within themselves and amongst themselves). Any posting to a military operation is also likely to increase the risk of conflict within families and personal relationships. An essential component of any preparation programme for peacekeeping forces should therefore be conflict resolution.
The role of conflict resolution in peacekeeping training has been identified in a number of recent studies.
One of the striking features of recent analyses by practitioners of peacekeeping has been the frequency with which reference is made to the relevance of conflict resolution. 3
Likewise, it has been recognised that theory, research and practice in the area of conflict resolution has an important contribution to make to practical peacekeeping:
There are approaches now by people who are experienced practitioners of military peacekeeping to combine their analyses with insights from academic conflict resolution. 4
Thus, preparation for peacekeeping needs to differ from conventional military training:
It involves the psychological change from an adversary to a pacific role; from confrontation to third party imposition. In peacekeeping there is no enemy: the object is to avoid hostilities, to improve communication between the parties, and to advance the process of reconciliation. This necessitates a full understanding of the causes of the conflict—political, military and economic—as well as the social and cultural environment. It demands a fair-minded and impartial approach while operating in an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion among the protagonists, often under difficult and provocative circumstances. 5
The Australian Defence Forces have a long history, and a distinguished international reputation in international peacekeeping operations. The Australian Defence Forces—Army, Navy and Airforce—are all volunteer, professional personnel. Participants in peacekeeping operations are also volunteers. Australian personnel have served in operations as diverse as peace monitoring in the Middle East, mine-clearance training in south-east Asia, peacekeeping missions in Rwanda and security operations during peace talks in Bougainville. Participants have included medical, engineering and other technical specialists, as well as military advisers, communications experts and infantrymen.
In addition to their conventional military training, all Australian military personnel participating in peacekeeping operations undergo a period of at least two weeks mission-specific preparation which includes training in the context of the operation, United Nations’ peacekeeping doctrine, health and safety issues, and conflict resolution. Some training is undertaken on a regular, routine basis for personnel departing for on-going operations (for example, peace-monitoring in the Middle East, or mine clearance experts departing for Cambodia and Mozambique), and some is undertaken in response to special operations (for example, missions which were sent to Rwanda and Bougainville).
The training and preparation of peacekeeping forces is co-ordinated by the Deployed Forces Support Unit based at the Randwick Army Barracks in Sydney, New South Wales, with training for larger contingents undertaken at the military base in Townsville, Queensland. Most training is provided by military personnel, but some specialist components are provided by external, civilian specialists. The component on conflict resolution was introduced in response to requests from personnel returning from operations.
A standard framework for training in conflict resolution has been developed on the basis of research undertaken with Australian defence force personnel. 6 The framework is sufficiently flexible to allow participants in any training session to determine the key issues to be considered, but includes an introduction to basic principles and practices of conflict resolution. The framework is also sufficiently flexible to allow the key elements to be delivered in relatively short training sessions (as little as one hour) or to be extended productively to longer sessions (of up to four hours). The training has been designed to minimise discomfort on the part of participants by avoiding techniques which, although often included in professional training programmes, have been identified as producing high resistance amongst defence personnel (notably role plays) and to maximise participation by and the identification of issues of specific concern to the participants (for example, by the use of trigger questions).
Each time the workshop has been provided it has been modified on the basis of the comments, questions and issues raised by participants. Work is now being undertaken to summarise the programme into a basic handbook that can be provided to peacekeeping forces, and which will include a number of practical exercises and self-assessment instruments.
The workshop consists of three components:
1. An introduction to conflict and its resolution
Participants are given a basic introduction to principles of conflict and conflict resolution, phrased and described in terms relevant to their experience.
The key principles identified are:
As a simple summary:
Participants are encouraged to consider how some of these principles may be difficult to apply in the military context (for example, expression of feelings) and to explore options for overcoming such difficulties.
Similarly, participants are introduced to the most common negative responses to conflict. These are:
The majority of participants are able to identify characteristic negative responses to conflict (both personally and professionally) and to describe why they are unlikely to resolve, and likely to increase, conflict. The majority identify denial, drugs and alcohol and violence as those they most commonly encounter in themselves and in other military personnel.
Consideration of negative responses also involves a recognition that the peacekeeper can provoke conflict as much as minimise it. Provocation often results from the use of excessive force or threat of force. An abrupt order may provoke conflict; a polite request is much less likely to do so.
A case example can be helpful in this regard; the following has been used to considerable effect in many of the workshops.
You are ordered to guard a gate, and to comply with the following orders: (1) no-one is to pass through the gate; (2) you are to use your weapon only to protect your own life; (3) the local situation is highly volatile and you are to do nothing that may inflame it. A local resident approaches you and says: “I am going through the gate.” What is your response? What are other possible responses? and what is the likely reaction by the local resident to each?
Discussion of the case study also allows for some of the contradictions inherent in military personnel undertaking peacekeeping operations to be considered in a non-threatening way.
It is not unusual for a participant, usually humorously, to suggest “Try it and I’ll shoot you” as an initial response. This inevitably leads to a discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of such an approach.
2. The concept of analytical problem solving conflict resolution
The concept of analytical problem solving conflict resolution was developed by John Burton. 7 It can be readily translated into military language: for example, the key elements of the approach are similar to those involved in planning a military operation.
The approach assumes that much conflict is predictable. If conflict can be predicted, appropriate resources, training and responses can be planned.
3. The application of the concept
Participants are assisted to develop an inventory of potential conflict in peacekeeping operations generally, and in the operation for which they are preparing specifically. This involves the use of classical “brainstorming:” members of the group identify as many types or areas of potential conflict as possible and when the inventory has been completed, key types or areas (or if the duration of the programme allows, all types and areas) are considered.
The group is encouraged to identify and explore options for eliminating, minimising or surviving each identified source of conflict. This involves the identification of appropriate resources, personal and interpersonal skills and support mechanisms. The aim of the process is not simply to develop a list of problems and possible solutions, but to give the participants practical experiences in an analytical and (to use Burton’s term) proventive 8 approach to conflict resolution.
Conflict is identified by participants as occurring essentially in three stages:
The research with Australian Defence Forces has identified a relatively consistent inventory of sources of conflict. The pre- and post-mission conflict most often involves personal relationships and family. Many participants identify the need for conflict resolution training to be given as soon after the announcement of the mission as possible, and prior to their departure from their families for briefing and training.
In some cases, the Australian Army has provided conflict resolution training for defence personnel and their husbands or wives (specifically when the whole family will go on a posting), but has yet to provide training for whole families, although this has been identified as a need.
A typical inventory of family and personal conflict before and after the peacekeeping operation would include:
FAMILY: PRE-DEPARTURE
FAMILY: DURING MISSION
FAMILY: POST-RETURN
Participants (whether or not they been on peacekeeping missions previously) are readily able to identify potential sources of conflict during a mission. These fall into a number of broad categories. The result of a typical “brainstormed” inventory might be:
STRESS
ANXIETY
UNCERTAINTY
EXPECTATIONS
DANGER
CONFUSION
ISOLATION
CULTURE
PHYSICAL SITUATION
VALUES
“THE SYSTEM”
COMPETING DEMANDS
CONFINEMENT
GROUP DYNAMICS
POLITICS
For each cause, the following questions can be asked:
1. PREDICTION
HOW IS THIS TYPE OF CONFLICT MOST LIKELY TO BE DEALT WITH?
2. PREPARATION
WHAT PREPARATION CAN BE DONE FOR THIS AREA OF CONFLICT?
3. PROVENTION
HOW CAN THIS AREA OF CONFLICT BE MINIMISED?
4. RESPONSE
HOW CAN THIS TYPE OF CONFLICT BEST BE RESPONDED TO WHEN IT OCCURS?
5. RECOVERY
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AFTER CONFLICT OF THIS TYPE OCCURS?
This approach is based on an assumption that the participants can identify the potential sources of conflict, can also identify effective responses, and are more likely to learn principles of practical usefulness through participation in a group problem-solving process than a formal instructional lecture.
It has been unusual for participants to identify specifically intra-personal or intra-psychic conflicts. This seems to result from what can be called a “culture of competency”, that is, an assumption by the defence forces, internalised by most personnel, that they must be able to cope in any given situation and that, even when they cannot, admission of a personal inadequacy will in some way be penalised. This may raise serious questions regarding psychological well-being in some cases, particularly where an individual in a relatively isolated situation is experiencing distressing personal emotions, but feels unable to discuss them.
Although this is not specifically related to training in conflict resolution, the training itself can highlight the potential effects of such intra-personal conflict.
The training in conflict resolution provided for Australian Defence Force personnel has produced very positive responses from the personnel involved, both after the training sessions and on their return to Australia. The training has not sought to question the importance of conventional military training, but to recognise and build on the skills the personnel have already acquired.
It has sought to be realistic, not attempting to offer an infallible formula by which to resolve all conflict, but rather offering principles which, in practice, will be likely to reduce most conflict. It also recognises some of the contradictions inherent in the concept of military peacekeeping: for example, that many military personnel do not wish to undertake what are essentially policing roles, that readiness for active intervention can lead to frustration in situations where passive monitoring is required, that a hierarchical structure can make self-disclosing communication difficult.
The training has also sought to minimise any threat or discomfort arising from a reluctance to discuss issues of emotion, perception and uncertainty. Consideration has been given to providing training only to groups of approximately equivalent ranks to eliminate barriers which can, and do, exist in regard to self-disclosure to those who are not peers or to acknowledging possible inadequacies to superiors or subordinates. This has not, in fact, been done, mainly for logistical reasons.
Because conflict resolution is not, and should not be presented as, anything like an exact science or precise technology, it cannot be presented through conventional instructional lectures. An interactive, participatory and experiential approach is essential, making use of relevant examples and scenarios.
The increasing role of military personnel in peacekeeping operations and the probability that, for the defence forces of most countries, a conventional war is remote, requires reconsideration of the training provided for all military personnel. For those preparing to undertake peacekeeping missions, or who may inevitably do so in the course of their careers, training in conflict resolution is essential.
Adequate research and development needs to be undertaken in this area to ensure that training programmes of the highest standard can be implemented. No training programme, and no approach to conflict resolution is culturally neutral; effective training must take account of the culture (both in its anthropological sense and in the sense of the corporate or organisational culture) from which participants come.
The success of, and risks to, peacekeeping operations clearly relate to the ability of personnel at all levels to respond effectively to conflict, whether intra-personal or inter-personal, intra-group or inter-group, whether conflict they are experiencing or conflict they are observing.
Baxter, L.A. (1982) “Conflict management: an episodic approach.” Small Group Behaviour 13:23-42
Borisoff, D. and Victor, D. A. (1989) Conflict management: a communication skills approach Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
John Burton (1990) Conflict: Resolution and Provention London, Macmillan
John Burton (1990) Conflict: Human Needs Theory London, Macmillan
Canary, D.J. and Spitzberg, B.H.(1997) “Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict strategies” Human Communication Research 15:93-118
Canary, D.J. and Spitzberg, B.H. (1989) “A model of the perceived competence of conflict strategies” Human Communication Research 15: 630-649
Canary, D.J. and Spitzberg, B.H. (1990) “Attribution biases and associations between conflict strategies and competence outcomes” Communication Monographs 57:139-151
Fogg, R.W. (1985) “Dealing with conflict: a repertoire of creative, peaceful approaches” Journal of Conflict Resolution 29 (2):330-358.
Folger, J.P., Poole, M.S. and Stutman, R. K. (1993) Working through conflict: strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Hare, A.P. (1985) Social interaction as drama: applications from conflict resolution Beverly Hills, California, Sage Publications
Hill, B. J. (1982) “An analysis of conflict resolution techniques from problem-solving workshops to theory” Journal of Conflict Resolution 26 (1):109-138
Porter, J.N. and Taplin, R. (1987) Conflict and conflict resolution: a sociological introduction with updated bibliography and theory section Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
Pruitt, D.G. and Carnevale, P.J. (1993) Negotiation in social conflict Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ray, E.B. and Ray, G. B. (1986) “Teaching conflict management skills in corporate training: a perspective taking approach” Communication Education 35 (3):208-290.
Sandole, D.J.D. and Sandole-Staroste, I. (Eds) (1987) Conflict management and problem solving: interpersonal to international applications London: Frances Pinter
Schultz, B. and Anderson, J. (1984) “Training in the management of conflict. A communication theory perspective” Small Group Behaviour 15 (3):333-348.
Sillars, A.L. and Weisberg, J. (1987) “Conflict as a social skill” in M.E. Roloff and G. R. Miller (Eds) Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research Beverly Hills, California: Sage
Stepsis, J.A. (1974) “Conflict resolution strategies” in J.W. Pfeiffer and J.E. Jones (Eds) The 1974 annual handbook for group facilitators La Jolla, California: University Associates
Sternberg, R.J. and Robson, D.M. (1987) “Resolving interpersonal conflicts: an analysis of stylistic consistency” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52:794-812.
Sternberg, R.J. and Soriano, L.J. (1984) “Styles of conflict resolution” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47:115-126
Tillett, G. (1991) Resolving conflict: a practical approach South Melbourne: Sydney University Press in association with Oxford University Press Australia
Vayrynen, R (Ed) (1991) New Directions in Conflict Theory: Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation London: Sage
Wareheime, R.G. (1980) “Conflict management training: a cognitive/behavioral approach” Group and Organization Studies 5 (4):467-476.
Weiss-Wik, S. (1983) “Enhancing negotiators’ successfulness: self-help books and related empirical research” Journal of Conflict Resolution 27 (4):706-73
Woodhouse, T. and Ramsbotham, O (1996) “Terra Incognita: Here be Dragons. Peacekeeping and conflict resolution in contemporary conflict: some relationships considered.” Paper presented at the INCORE Conference on Training and Preparation of Peacekeepers, University of Ulster, June, 1996
Woodhouse, T. and Ramsbotham, O (1996) Humanitarian Intervention in Contemporary Conflict: A Reconceptualization Cambridge: Polity Press
Endnotes
Note 1: For a discussion of the changing nature of military operations in peacekeeping, see Tom Woodhouse and Oliver Ramsbotham: Terra Incognita: Here be Dragons. Peacekeeping and conflict resolution in contemporary conflict: some relationships considered. Paper presented at the INCORE Conference on Training and Preparation of Peacekeepers, University of Ulster, 1996. Back.
Note 2: United Nations: Economic and Social Council Final Report of the in-depth evaluation of peace-keeping operations: start-up phase, United Nations, New York: 1995: paragraph 89. Back.
Note 3: Woodhouse and Ramsbotham, 1996:17. Back.
Note 4: Woodhouse and Ramsbotham, 1996:17. Back.
Note 5: General Clayton Beattie, Canadian Army, in H. Wiseman (Ed) Peacekeeping: Appraisals and Proposals, Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1983:209 quoted in Woodhouse and Ramsbotham, 1996:21. Back.
Note 6: This paper is based on research undertaken with Australian Defence Forces preparing to undertake peacekeeping operations. Participative Action Research methodology was used, during which training sessions in conflict resolution were provided for around 1,000 personnel in groups ranging in membership from 4 to 200. These included all Australian peacekeeping forces preparing for overseas missions during the past two years. Missions included routine operations (for example, peace monitoring in the Middle East and mine-clearance operations in south east Asia) and special operations (including troops going to Rwanda and Bougainville). It included a major south Pacific combined operation which involved defence personnel from Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Vanuatu and Tonga. Back.
Note 7: See John Burton Conflict: Resolution and Provention Macmillan, London, 1990. For a practical approach to applying Burton’s theory, see Tillett, G. (1991) Resolving conflict: a practical approach. South Melbourne: Sydney University Press in association with Oxford University Press Australia. Back.
Note 8: Provention “does not mean prevention, but rather the development and implementation of processes which will encourage a conflict to emerge and be approached creatively.” Tillett, above cit.:142 Back.
Email this citation