Comparing the Impact of Peace Groups

REVIEW BY CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL

Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University

Mobilizing for Peace: Conflict Resolution in Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine and SouthAfrica. Edited by Benjamin Gidron, Stanley M. Katz, and Yeheskel Hasenfeld. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2002. 304 pp., $45.00 (ISBN: 0-19-512592-4).

To date, the literature on unofficial (Track Two) organizations seeking to bringabout intrasocietal peace (or the resolution of protracted social conflicts) has tendedto consist of case studies involving a single organization working in a single location.The work of such organizations also occasionally merits a mention in studies ofrecent peace processes, such as those in Central America, Sri Lanka, or NorthernIreland (Darby and MacGinty 2000). Finally, these groups make rare appearancesin works, such as the study by Marc Ross and Jay Rothman (1999), seeking toanswer the question: How successful are Track Two activities?

In Mobilizing for Peace, a number of scholars have collaborated to produce asystematic, comparative study of the work of peace and conflict resolutionorganizations in three very different settings: Northern Ireland, South Africa,and Israel-Palestine. Moreover, they have produced interesting findings from thecomparison, not least of which is that commonalities exist in the nature, tactics, andachievements of such organizations, despite major differences in the societies inwhich they work and the conflicts with which they deal.

The research that resulted in Mobilizing for Peace originally focused on twoquestions: what do the peace and conflict resolution organizations in these threepeace processes have in common, and how effective have they been? However, theresearch team (which, apart from the three editors, consisted of scholars from thecountries under examination) rapidly found that even asking such apparentlystraightforward questions immediately raised a variety of issues. What sorts oforganizations, for example, could unambiguously be categorized as ‘‘peace andconflict resolution organizations’’? What effects were the various organizations inthis category seeking to achieve, and did their leaders mean the same things by‘‘peace’’ and ‘‘conflict resolution’’? Did organizations that were seeking to monitorhuman rights violations contribute to a peace process? How immediate and directdid the influence of these organizations have to be, and on whom?

These initial dilemmas are perhaps best illustrated by the sections of the bookthat deal with Palestinian peace groups. These organizations were clearlycommitted not merely to achieving peace but to achieving a just peace that wouldredress fundamental Palestinian grievances. Manuel Hassassian, in his chapter onPalestinian peace organizations, highlights this dilemma clearly and raises the issueof whether any of the organizations surveyed on the Palestinian side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were peace and conflict resolution organizations in the samesense as Peace Now in Israel or the Black Sash movement in South Africa.

In many ways, the contributors to Mobilizing for Peace found themselves facingone of the classic dilemmas in the field of conflict analysis: the need to defineappropriate roles for peace- seekers in highly asymmetric conflicts. Many years ago,Adam Curle (1971) suggested that the major task of peace activists depends on thestage of the conflict and the relationship between the adversaries. Curle’s main

r 2003 International Studies Review.PublishedbyBlackwellPublishing,350MainStreet,Malden,MA02148,USA,and9600GarsingtonRoad,OxfordOX42DQ,UK.

International Studies Review (2003) 5, 383–385

argument was that, in asymmetric conflicts involving dominant and dominatedparties, the proper tasks for peacemakers do not simply involve building bridges,holding dialogues, or seeking compromises. Instead, they involve confronting thedominant, publicizing the nature and results of the unbalanced relationship, andeducating protagonists, interveners, and observers about the need for structuralchange before any genuine, just, and lasting peace can be attained. Interestingly,the contributors to Mobilizing for Peace appear to have come to the same conclusion.For example, their categorization of the major goals of their peace organizations,which reflected how these groups viewed the roots of their particular conflicts,ranged from calls for structural system change to demands for changes in personalattitudes and belief as well as policy. Similarly, their categorization of the tacticsadopted by the peace organizations in these three cases includes protests andlobbying, as well as bridging, service, research, and public education.

This intellectual and practical dilemma is only one of many that the contributorsto Mobilizing for Peace had to overcome. One of the interesting side benefits of thebook lies in observing how the research team recognized and dealt with suchproblems. In fact, Mobilizing for Peace provides such excellent lessons on thedifficulties and rewards of comparative research across conflicts, societies, andcultures that it could be a useful addition to a course on research design orcomparative methodology.

Quite apart from its methodological value, Mobilizing for Peace provides anexcellent substantive survey of the kinds of peace organizations that developed inthese four societies, especially during the 1980s and early 1990s. (Palestine is, ineffect, treated as a separate society throughout the book.) Questions such as thestructure of the organizations (most tending toward greater formality over time),their sources of funding (in most cases from outside sources, including foreigngovernments), their links to policymakers (variable from case to case and time totime), and their membership (largely middle class) are discussed and analyzedthoroughly, with due regard for the differing political circumstances of each case.For example, Israeli governmentsFboth Labour and LikudFkept Israeli peaceorganizations at arms length. On the other hand, Palestinian organizations had nogovernment with which to relate until the Palestinian Authority came into being inthe mid-1990’s, at which time it pursued a similar arms-length relationship. Thebook manages to combine a broad-brush comparative approach to these and otherissues, but it also fleshes out the broader picture with interesting details taken froma variety of organizations in the four societies. This macro- and micro-perspectiveresults in a complex but interesting picture of people and organizations strugglingfor conflict resolution, or at least mitigation, against heavy odds and consistentdisapproval.

But what of the central question, regarding the impact or effects of theseorganizations on the various peace processes? Here, the study indicates fairlyclearly that in all three cases, the direct impact of peace organizations on theachievement of a formal peace accordFnegotiated and concluded at the Track OnelevelFwas minimal or nonexistent. As the editors express the finding: the ‘‘impact[of peace organizations] on a peace settlement or the resolution of the conflict andon the actual process of peacemaking or conflict resolution was marginal in all thecases’’ (p. 207). On the other hand, the authors argue convincingly that the peaceorganizations they studied did have an impact on defining the conflict and theoptions for its resolution. Moreover, this was an important contributionFanecessary accompaniment to official, policy-level processes. The editors talk aboutthis as ‘‘achieving cultural change’’ (p. 214), but another way of expressing this is torecognize the role of peace organizations in providing alternatives: alternativefuture options, alternative views of the adversary, and alternative ways of viewingthe conflict itself. This process certainly occurred in South Africa. In pullingtogether the findings of the case studies, the editors quote the activist leader, Laurie

Comparing the Impact of Peace Groups384

Nathan, on the essential need to widely accept that ‘‘we’ve misdiagnosed, we’vemisunderstood, the nature of the problem if you see this as ‘white’ versus ‘black’ ’’(p. 216). This process also occurred in Northern Ireland when people on both sidesof the sectarian divide began to see the problem as two rival communities needingto find a way to live together rather than as a residual problem of colonialism.

Mobilizing for Peace contains a rich variety of other interesting findings forstudents of international organizations, international norms, peace, and conflictresolution. However, its most important discussion focuses on this key role of peaceand conflict resolution organizations: not simply building bridges, but buildingalternatives.

References

CURLE, ADAM. (1971) Making Peace. London: Tavistock.DARBY, JOHN, AND ROGER MACGINTY. (2000) The Management of Peace Processes. New York: St. Martin’s

Press.ROSS, MARC HOWARD, AND JAY ROTHMAN, eds. (1999) Theory and Practice in Ethnic Conflict Management.

New York: St. Martin’s Press.

CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL 385