PACS 2500 Introduction to Peace and Conflict Studies Guy Burgess Co-Director Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado UCB 580, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO , (303) Copyright © 2014 Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess

Lowest Number Grade for Each Letter Grade Questions about how your test was graded. After class Thursday or by appointment. 119A+52C 96A/A+51C+ 90A47C/C+ 84A/A-45C 81A-42C/C- 79A/B40C- 75B+36C/D 71B/B+30D/D+ 67B27D/D- 62B/B-16F 56B-9F-- 54C+/B-

Re-Test / Extra Credit Option Test #1 Only

Constructive/Legitimate vs. Destructive/Illegitimate Power Contests Administrative Appeals Bribes (Legal/Illegal) Rights-Based Litigation Loophole Litigation “Hot Button” Propaganda” Principled Campaigns Democratic Elections Secret Police Nonviolent Action Terrorism Conquest/Invasion Military Defense Invisible Hand Invisible Fist ( Monopoly ) Legitimate Power OptionsIllegitimate Power Options

BATNA Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement On what basis do you decide whether or not to accept a negotiated agreement?

BATNA Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement Conclusion of a Negotiation Process Are there any power contest alternatives that are likely to give me a better deal? Accept Agreement Administrative appeal Legal challenge Political lobbying Electoral campaigns Public persuasion Economic action Civil disobedience Military action Etc,

BATNA Limit / Ripeness Conclusion of a Negotiation Process Are there any power contest alternatives that are likely to give me a better deal? Conclusion of a Negotiation Process Are there any power contest alternatives that are likely to give me a better deal? Accept Agreement Administrative appeal Legal challenge Political lobbying Electoral campaigns Public persuasion Economic action Civil disobedience Military action Etc,

BATNA Limit / Ripeness Conclusion of a Negotiation Process Are there any power contest alternatives that are likely to give me a better deal? WIN Ballot Initiative WIN Conclusion of a Negotiation Process Are there any power contest alternatives that are likely to give me a better deal? Power Contest Shortcut Bitter End Path Accept Agreement

BATNA Limit / Ripeness Conclusion of a Negotiation Process Are there any power contest alternatives that are likely to give me a better deal? WIN Ballot Initiative LOSE Conclusion of a Negotiation Process Are there any power contest alternatives that are likely to give me a better deal? Power Contest Shortcut Bitter End Path Accept Agreement

Consensus Building Institute

Consensus Building I  Assumption: the parties really want to resolve the dispute  Usually business-as-usual is not acceptable  Examples Metropolitan Denver water supply Social Security Denver-area transit Municipal budget downsizing Security and anti-terrorism Boulder Open Space management

Consensus Building II  Step #1: Conflict assessment / development of a consensus building plan  Need lead individual / organization to do the work  Identify stakeholders Active and latent stakeholders Especially those with veto power Constituency groups and potential representatives  Determine stakeholder interests (with visits / documents) Formal (often legal) responsibilities Formal (often legal) constraints Powers (legal, political, economic, public opinion)

Consensus Building III  Explain consensus building opportunities and options  Discuss their willingness to participate “in good faith”  Concerns that must be overcome  Opportunities that they would like to see developed  Identify potential funding sources  Prepare a consensus building proposal  Must work within existing responsibility and power relationships

Consensus Building IV  Step #2: Sell the proposal  Obtain commitments to participate from key stakeholders  Obtain skilled facilitation/mediation services May be different from person doing assessment  Obtain adequate funding

Consensus Building V  Step #3: Implement the consensus building process  Convene stakeholder/participants  Establish ground rules  Agree on meeting schedule  Establish routine negotiators/constituent loop  Build interpersonal relationships among negotiators  Identify problems to be addressed Field trips, narratives

Consensus Building VI  Step #3 (continued)  Identify interests to be protected/advanced  Identify options for mutual gain Or minimal loss (in negative-sum) conflicts  Identify action forcing mechanisms  Step #4: Implement the agreement  Sequencing / enforcement  Periodic reassessments

Fire Next Time An Intimate Window Into the Red/Blue Divide

Flathead Community "Re-Boot" Forum

Group #1: Not in Our Town

Group #2: Environmentalists

Group #3: Logging Industry

Group #4: ORV Recreationists

Group #5: Community Leaders

Group #6: Assertive Activists

Mirrors

Hands Against Hate

Assertive Activists Try to understand their frustrations – Lost jobs – Lost recreation – Perceived government favoritism – race – Misinformation – No recourse within government – Fear Still, illegitimate tactics can discredit the movement

Extra Slides

Other Examples

Flathead Community "Re-Boot" Forum

Fire Next Time Community Common Ground Meeting Two discussion group scores Group #1 / Interest Group Caucus Group #2 / Community Roundtables / Plenary

Common Ground Meeting  What points of agreement exist?  What points of disagreement exist?  Fact-based disagreements  Value-based disagreements  What initiatives can you imagine that would achieve broad (but not necessarily universal support)?  In cases where we feel we must “agree to disagree” how can we handle those disagreements most constructively?

Ground Rules  Treat others the way you would like to be treated  Accept that you are talking about important issues that everyone really cares about  Respect others and expect to be respected  Listen and expect to be listened to  Agree where you can, but disagree where you must  Acknowledge that participants will still be aggressive advocates following the meeting  Goal: Identify areas in which we can work together Focus our disagreements as constructively as possible on the core issues

Pre-Meeting Group Caucuses  Identify  Interests you want to defend / advance – things you really care about  Persuasive arguments explaining why the things that you care about are in the interest of the whole community  Factual arguments supporting your position  Proposed “quid pro quo” exchanges / compromises  Strategies for dealing with irreconcilable differences (constructive, non-violent confrontations)

Group Roles Really try to imagine yourself in their position

Common Ground Meeting  What points of agreement exist?  What points of disagreement exist?  Fact-based disagreements  Value-based disagreements  What possible compromises can you imagine for simultaneously advancing the interests of all parties?  In cases where we feel we must “agree to disagree” how can we handle those disagreements most constructively?

Forum Goals  Not to suppress conflict  Help everyone advance their core interests  Limit destructive conflict dynamics that are making it hard to advance those interests

Group Assignments? Groups will be randomly assigned next Tuesday unless you volunteer for a group or groups by 9am Monday using the urgent contact form. In general, things work better if everybody really believes in their group – so volunteer for a group that you can identify with. Also, I need volunteers for the “Assertive Activists” group – the most non-politically correct group. For this to work, I need people to really try to understand their perspectives.

3 rd Party Intervention / Rescue

3 rd Party / Intermediary Processes  Adjudication  Special Case: Mock Trials  Arbitration  Special Case: Final Offer Arbitration  Med-Arb (Mediation/Arbitration)  Mediation  Special Case: Transformative Mediation  Facilitation  Convening  Hybrid Processes Neutrality?

Other Ideas  Self-Interest vs. Social Interests  Higman’s “WHY?” questions  NIMBY’s NOPE’s BANANA’s  Within Coalition vs. Between Coalition  Fairness Principles