Interest-Based Conflict Resolution, Worldwork, and the Strife in Iraq

I - Introduction

The elections held in Iraq on Sunday, January 31, 2005, hold out the promise that a peaceful government and society will emerge from the present violent situation under American occupation. In spite of this promise, though, now that the elections have concluded, the divisions in Iraqi society remain deep, and the cycle of violence continues. (Cole, 2005b)

In this essay I summarize my understanding of the violent conflict in Iraq, and describe how the fulfillment of the promise of peace might be approached by two schools of conflict: interest-based conflict resolution, as advanced by the Harvard Negotiation Project (Fisher et al., 1991); and worldwork, as developed by Arnold Mindell (Mindell, 1995, 2002) and his colleagues.

II - Conflict in Iraq

Three ethnic groups make up the bulk of the population of Iraq: a majority of Shiite Muslims throughout the country but concentrated in the south around the city of Basra; Kurds who live in the northeast, concentrated around the cities of Kirkuk, Mosul, and the border with Turkey; and a minority of Sunni Arabs, some scattered throughout the country, with most concentrated in the so-called "Sunni Triangle" in the vicinity of Baghdad. A small Turkmen minority also inhabits the Kurdish areas.

Prior to the American invasion in 2003, Saddam Hussein headed the Sunni-dominated, secular Ba'ath Party, which controlled the government and maintained power along Stalinist lines. In recent decades, Iraq has fought a bloody but inconclusive war with its neighbor Iran, and suffered a painful and humiliating defeat by the American-led allies in the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein's ruling government bloodily put down uprisings by Iraq's Kurdish and (in the aftermath of the Gulf War) Shiite populations. After the Gulf War, the Kurds had been living in semi-autonomy under the protection of American air power.

The invasion of 2003 quickly led to American control of Baghdad and British control of Basra. Although direct military engagements between the invaders and regular army forces ended at this point, an insurgency built around Ba'athist internal security forces has been waging a "fourth-generation-warfare" guerilla campaign (Hammes, 2004) against the American and British occupation forces and the interim government installed by the occupiers.

Factions working to shape the course of Iraqi society either through political activity or armed struggle include (Cole, 2004):

• Shiites led by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who is working through the political system for resolution of Iraq's future. Militant Shiite followers of Moqtada Sadr seek to secure their future through force of arms

• Kurdish nationalists, working both politically and militarily for autonomy and/or independence for Iraqi Kurdistan under such leaders as Massoud Barzani and Jalad Talibani.

• Sunni Arabs, feeling disenfranchised by the majority-rule electoral process demanded by Sistani and the Shiite majority, wishing to keep their stake in Iraq's government and natural resources.

• Ba'athists fighting to expel the invaders and restore the secular Iraqi state that existed prior to the invasion.

• Radical Islamists such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who are in the short term also fighting to repel the invaders but may also be working for the larger al Qaeda program of renewing Islam and uniting the Islamic world, possibly through restoring the caliphate in Baghdad.

• Americans and their allies. America's stated motivations for the invasion have changed over time, and it is not clear where American interest really lies, beyond access to the output of Iraq's oil fields. American leaders describe their hopes for a liberal secular democracy. America's critics fear the aim is really a colonial possession laid open for economic exploitation.
  

Other countries in the region have a stake in Iraq's future: Israel is concerned about its own security, and viewed the previous Ba'ath regime under Saddam Hussein as a significant threat. Turkey is greatly concerned that an independent Kurdistan on its borders could be used as a staging area for a Kurdish insurgency within its own borders. Iran could well share the same concern, and in addition would be well-disposed to a Shiite-run neighbor.

Modern-day Iraq is the location of the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the birthplace of Western civilization. The sites of the oldest cities in the West are here. The oldest known written story (the Epic of Gilgamesh) was written here, as were the oldest known written laws (the Code of Hammurabi). Baghdad
was the capitol of the empire of the Abbasid caliphs during the flowering of Islamic culture, before its conquest by the Seljuk Turks. Babylon and Baghdad are important locations in contemporary Christian mythology of the Apocalypse and the ending of the world. (Lavender, 2003)

III - Interest-Based Conflict Resolution

Interest-based conflict resolution is an approach to making agreements that is based on rational analysis in consensus reality. Fisher et al. (1991) lay out four principles of reaching good agreements: (1) separate the people from the problem; (2) focus on interests rather than positions; (3) invent options for mutual gain; and (4) insist on objective criteria. The second principle is what gives the interest-based approach its name, and it is the essence of the approach.

Positions are rigid demands, e.g.: "American forces must be withdrawn from Iraq," "The city of Kirkuk and the surrounding oil fields are to be part of the integrated Kurdish canton," or "Iraq must remain a unified country under a single government." It is difficult to shift or change a bargaining position – and perhaps that's the point, to make it difficult to give ground in the negotiation.

To focus on interests is to look at what purpose a supposed negotiating position actually serves: to be free from the intimidation and threat of violence by foreign troops, for example, or to not be cut off from economic resources.

An interest-based approach to the situation in Iraq would involve bringing together representatives of the various factions, persuading them to put aside or work separately on grievances and emotional issues, and encouraging them to work together on finding ways to meet the needs of all the factions together. This requires getting the participation of all the factions.

The proportional representation of the elections, exacerbated by Sunni Arab abstention from voting, appears to have resulted in a parliament dominated by Shiites and Kurds (Cole, 2005a). The parliament may therefore not be the right forum for this purpose. Mediators hoping to help Iraq find a comprehensive solution to its divisions and strife would face a major challenge in getting the Sunni Arab community to constructively engage with the Shiite- and Kurd-controlled new government.

IV - Worldwork

Among the ways worldwork differs from the interest-based approach to conflict two stand out. One is the domains in which the two approaches work; another is the means by which the approaches operate.

The domain of the interest-based approach is consensus reality: it is a very rational framework for dealing with conflict. While its proponents stress the importance of the emotional dimension of conflict and negotiation, solutions are found through analysis, and their value is judged by "objective" criteria. In worldwork, in contrast, participants' emotions, feelings, and dreams are necessary parts of the solution as well as being dimensions of the problem. One might go so far as to say that worldwork is dreaming-based conflict resolution, in contrast to interest- or needs-based conflict resolution.

While worldwork and process work can be brought to the bargaining table as part of participants' or mediators' sensibility (analogous to a metaskill), the primary arena of worldwork is the group process that takes place in an open forum (Mindell, 2002).

(In the jargon of process work, "group process" has two distinct meanings. One is the interaction that unfolds in any group of people, whether the group is negotiators at a bargaining table, worshippers praying in a mosque, passengers on a bus, friends talking over coffee, or any other group of people interacting for any reason. The other meaning of "group process" is the specific format for group interaction practiced by process workers.)

Worldworkers in Iraq would hold and facilitate group processes, seeking to engender in the participants awareness and understanding of each other, across whatever divisions there are between them. Some of these group processes would be open forums, with participation by anyone who cared to attend; others might be facilitated for government officials and/or community leaders. The goal would be to grow awareness among the populace and leadership alike. Worldwork doesn't explicitly work towards comprehensive solutions, so much as it spreads understanding so that the people involved can find such solutions more effectively, solutions that work on dreaming and essential levels as well as in consensus reality.

It would be an ambitious project indeed to get as many as one person in every thousand in Iraq to attend an open forum. If it could be done, though, it could result in a significant change in the country's political and emotional climate.

Another difference between worldwork and the interest-based approach is the attitude towards personality in the course of negotiation. The interest-based approach calls for dealing with emotional and psychological issues separately; even in a formal setting, far outside the group-process format. A process-oriented approach would tend to integrate working on psychological issues with working on ones Fisher, et al. (1991) would call "substantive."

V - Discussion

The interest-based approach of Roger Fisher and William Ury does not stand in opposition to worldwork. The interest-based approach is geared specifically to the negotiating table or the political caucus, focused on reaching agreement. Worldwork aims at sharing understanding on deep, meaningful levels. A worldworker at a bargaining table could do a lot worse than to apply the interest-based approach while cultivating awareness of roles and polarizations, signals, rank, and states of consciousness. Process work adds to the repertoire of the conflict resolution professional.

With respect to Iraq, the sad truth is that outside help is almost certainly not going to be effective, whether it is a cadre of professional mediators or of worldworkers who offers it. Unless the answer to Iraq's troubles comes from Iraq, the many Iraqi peoples have every reason to reject it as being imposed through foreign domination.

References:

Cole, Juan, 2004: "Welcome to the quagmire," Salon, March 19, 2004, http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/19/iraq/.

———, 2005a: "Religious Shiites claim victory", Informed Comment, February 2, 2005, http://www.juancole.com/2005/02/religious-shiites-claim-victory-abdul.html.

———, 2005b: "Guerrillas kill 11 as Mosul & Ninevah demonstrate," Informed Comment, February 3, 2005, http://www.juancole.com/2005/02/guerrillas-kill-11-as-mosul-ninevah.html.

Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton, 1991: Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in, 2nd ed., Penguin Books, New York, New York.

Hammes, Thomas X., 2004: The sling and the stone: on war in the 21st century, Zenith Press, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Lavender, Rick, 2003: "Armageddon? some say war means end is near", The Times, March 30, 2003, Gainesville, Georgia.

Mindell, Arnold, 1995: Sitting in the fire: large group transformation using conflict and diversity, Lao Tse Press, Portland, Oregon.

———, 2002: The deep democracy of open forums, Hampton Roads Publishing Co., Charlottesville, Virginia.