WAR AS A MEANS OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

War is certainly one way to resolve a conflict. It is one of the oldest forms of conflict resolution as well. Perhaps not one of the cleanest, though.

Conflict is an armed struggle or clash between organized groups within a nation or between nations in order to achieve limited political or military objectives. Although regular forces are often involved, irregular forces frequently predominate. Conflict often is protracted, confined to a restricted geographic area, and constrained in weaponry and level of violence. Within this state, military power in response to threats may be exercised in an indirect manner while supportive of other instruments of national power. Limited objectives may be achieved by the short, focused, and direct application of force. Conflict Resolution Incompatible interests are not the only things at issue in more severe conflicts. Conflicts last longer and are more deeply rooted than disputes. They tend to arise over non-negotiable issues such as fundamental human needs, intolerable moral differences, or high-stakes distributional issues regarding essential resources, such as money, water, or land. To truly resolve a conflict, the solution must go beyond just satisfying the parties' interests as in dispute settlement. To end or resolve a long-term conflict, a relatively stable solution that identifies and deals with the underlying sources of the conflict must be found. This is a more difficult task than simple dispute settlement, because resolution means going beyond negotiating interests to meet all sides' basic needs, while simultaneously finding a way to respect their underlying values and identities. However, some of the same intervention processes used in dispute settlement (i.e., mediation) are also used to achieve resolution. True conflict resolution requires a more analytical, problem-solving approach than dispute settlement. The main difference is that resolution requires identifying the causal factors behind the conflict, and finding ways to deal with them. On the other hand, settlement is simply aimed at ending a dispute as quickly and amicably as possible. This means that it is possible to settle a dispute that exists within the context of a larger conflict, without resolving the overall conflict. This occurs when a dispute is settled, but the underlying causes of the conflict are not addressed There are many reasons why underlying causes of conflict may not be addressed. Often, the underlying causes of conflict are embedded in the institutional structure of society. Achieving complete resolution of a conflict can require making significant socioeconomic or political changes that restructure society in a more just or inclusive way. Changing societal structures, such as the distribution of wealth in society, is a difficult thing to do and can take decades to accomplish.[3] Thus, fully resolving conflict can be a long, laborious process. As a result there are other conceptions of ways to deal with, but not necessarily "resolve," conflicts.

Conflict Management Conflict management involves the control, but not resolution, of a long-term or deep-rooted conflict. This is the approach taken when complete resolution seems to be impossible, yet something needs to be done. In cases of resolution-resistant or even intractable conflict, it is possible to manage the situation in ways that make it more constructive and less destructive.[4] The goal of conflict management is to intervene in ways that make the ongoing conflict more beneficial and less damaging to all sides. For example, sending peacekeeping forces into a region enmeshed in strife may help calm the situation and limit casualties. However, peacekeeping missions will not resolve the conflict. In some cases, where non-negotiable human needs are at stake, management is the most feasible step. War and Conflict Resolution in Pre-Colonial Fako By Monono Absalom Woloa

Introduction

The purpose of this write up is to analyse the nature of wars, as well as the organisation and methods of conflict resolution among the Bakweris. It also examines the extent to which colonial administrative policies, along with Christianity, education, end of slave trade and the advent of modern civilization have reduced the probability of wars in Fako Division.

The cause of wars among most traditional societies in Africa have been centered on vengeance and competition for special resources such as farming lands, labour (slaves) hunting grounds, women and mineral wealth such as gold, and more or less with the sophistication of political organisation. Among the Bakweris, the main causes of wars (Njuma as they are known) are generally linked to:

Firstly, the death of a village citizen in another village through witchcraft or

physical elimination. This act was interpreted as an assault on the honour and

power of the village concerned. This factor accounted for the 1883 Bimbia Soppo (Mokongo) war which resulted from the murder of King Williams (Ngomb'a Bille) by some Soppo warriors. In effect, revenge remained one of the major causes of war.

Another major cause for war among Bakweri villages was economic. The need to

acquire certain economic commodities from another village such as foodstuff which that village wanted to preserve exclusively usually led to conflicts. The raid by Wovea on Bomboko and other Bakweri mainland villages in 1890 in which they killed Chief Nganda of Ewovi, due to disagreement over the supply of food attest to the above assertion. In 1884 1885 also, a war broke out between Soppo (Wonganga) and Mapanja. Taking the aspect of trade as a factor, the 1883 Soppo 2 (Woganga) war with Bimbia is also attributed in part to the desire by the Soppo people to reduce the middlemen monopoly position of the Bimbians with regard to trade with Europeans.

In addition to economic factors, social considerations were also responsible for

wars. The need to preserve their culture, brought quarrels over games e.g. wrestling often provoked wars. Being a very conservative people, the Bakweris detested infiltration into their belief system and culture. The above factor partly accounted for the first Bakweri (Buea village) German war of 1891 which resulted from missionary intervention in the exercise of' witchcraft justice. A good example of war resulting from sports was in 1894 when Ghango (Boando) went to war with Molonde, burning down the whole village in revenge for the death of their wrestlers.

Furthermore, the preservation of territorial boundaries and land also brought

hostilities. The German decision to expropriate large expanses of the Bakweri land for its plantation farmers (now occupied by the C.D.C) led to two major wars of' 1891 1894.

Lastly, the rise of powerful warriors within certain villages sparked off hostilities

with nearby villages meant to demonstrate their might. As clearly pointed out by F.Y.E. Motinda in 1925, he asserts that Ekwa Motinda was the head of war in Buea and hero of the Mokako's family having conquered the villages of Soppo (Boteke), Bova l and II, Bokwai, Molyko, Ekona. Bulu and Likombe. Other powerful warriors during the period were Mwaka Mo Woloa of Soppo, Ekwa Motinda of lower Buea, Kuv'a Likenye of Upper Buea and Mbimbia Makaka of Bimbia. These men contributed to the hostilities that took place during this period.

The Nature of Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution in Bakweri land took many forms. Firstly, on a means to deter potential aggressor or make the aggressor not to emerge victorious in a war, alliances were formed. These alliances took the form of confederation of villages. These alliances were usually formed through the exchange of women to marry in the courts of contracting villages. Some of' these confederations included: the Soppo Confederation made of Soppo Mokongo, Soppo Wovila, Soppo Woteke, Soppo Likolo and Soppo Woganjo; the Bimbia Confederation made up of Bona Bile, Bona Ngomba and Dikolo; and the Buea Confederation made of Wondongo, Wonya Lyonga and Mokunda. The mere knowledge that an attack on any of the members meant an attack on all of them

deferred potential aggressors. If the formation of an alliance failed to deter war, conflicts were settled through an outright conquest or total surrender of one party to the other. In this case, the conquered territory became a vassal state. Thirdly, mediation through the good offices of a third party, usually a Chief of another village, served as an instrument of conflict resolution. In the event of such a situation, the

derision of the mediator was binding. A good example to support this was the role played by Chief Mwanja of Molyko and King Bell in ending the Bimbia-Soppo War of 1883. The tradition of the Bakweris holds that after reconciliation, revenge is forbidden. Furthermore, they believe that history should not be a factor for hostilities. In other words, people should not harbour grievances against others on grounds of old wars fought by their ancestors. This Bakweri proverb attest to the above: "O mowa wambaki, wenongoni weo mbga mimba", meaning; "You killed the ancestors but the ir descendants will offer you drinks".

Why the Reduced Probability of Wars in the 1900s

In the 1800s, some of the remembered wars which have survived the memories of the ageing population were, the 1855 Bimbia-Wovea war; the 1860s and 1870s, Ekwa Motinda's wars against Soppo (Boteke), Bova I and II, Bokwai, Molyko, Ekona and Likombe; the 1883 Bimbia-Soppo (mokongo) war; the 1884-1885 Soppo (wonganjo) and Mapanja war; the 1890 Wovea-Mbomboko war; the 1890s war between Buea and Mamu; the 1891 and 1894 Buea versus German wars; and the 1894 Ebando (Boando)-Molondi war. Other wars whose dates cannot be situated are those between Bokwai and Wonya Weyo (now an extinct village) and Mamu versus Bona kanda.

The question that comes to mind is, why has there been a relative peace in the Bakweri tribe in the 1900s when they were so bellicose in the 1800s. The answer can be deduced from the factors below: Firstly, co1onia l administration policies which were against any form of resistance or attacks against the colonial masters or on other citizens. Such attacks attracted severe punishment on the entire village community. In addition, the creation in 1895 of a regular German colonial army, Schutztruppe, instilled lot of fear among the natives.

Secondly, the influence of Christianity, with its moral injunction; "love your neighbour as you love yourself ", has helped to reduce the aggressive character of the Bakweri people as well as instill in them a love for settlers or neighbours. Furthermore, the advent of education brought the Bakweris to learn about evil consequences of wars and the advantage of peace. The end of slave trade also played a significant part, as the acquisition of slaves encouraged wars in the 1700s. Lastly, the Bakweris viewed war as a vocation of uncivilised people. They therefore conferred among themselves. The above factors largely have accounted for the relative stability of the Bakweri tribe in the 20th Century.

Moral Equivalent Of War As Conflict Resolution Subhash Mehta "It is easy to train an army of violence; even a year's drill may be good enough for that. But it takes a lot more time to train and prepare men to attain enough maturity and strength for a nonviolent struggle."-Gurudev Tagore Conflict Resolution is an activity practised by people throughout the world. The need for evolving peaceful ways of resolving conflicts has become more urgent than ever with the

expansion in the number and variety of conflicts. Hence, Conflict Resolution is verily a very dynamic and vast field especially in the context of conflicts in every walk of life.

Basic concepts : Conflicts have been described as existing whenever incompatible activities occur, when there is a state of tension between two actors irrespective of how it has originated or how it is terminated. Conflicts can occur between many varying combinations of parties and for great many reasons. Conflicts" may arise from differences in information or belief, may reflect differences in interests, desires or values, may occur as a result of a scarcity of some resource or may reflect a rivalry in which one person tries to out do or undo the other."1 Hence it may be defined as "it emerges whenever two or more persons or groups seek to possess the same object, occupy the same space or the same exclusive position, and play incompatible roles or goals or undertake mutually incompatible means for achieving their purposes."2 In all relationships, whether interpersonal or otherwise, there occasionally occurs some form of behaviours, which annoys, causes tension to or engenders resentment in one of the parties involved. A conflict can be said to be resolved when both parties have given up any hope of changing or amending the situation. In the Gandhian dialectic, however, conflicts can only be said to have been resolved when all parties are satisfied with the outcome, that is, when some mutually consistent setof actions is worked out. Such solutions obviously greatly reduce the fragility of resolutions. It was Mr. William James who in the 27th publication of the American Association for International Conciliation in February 1910 coined the expression "The Moral Equivalent of War". "So far war has been the only force that can discipline a whole community", wrote Mr. William James, "and until an equivalent discipline is organized, I believe that war must have its way. But I have no serious doubt that the ordinary prides and shames of social man, once developed to a certain intensity, are capable of organizing such a moral equivalent as I have sketched, or some such other just as effective for preserving manliness of type. It is but a question of time of skillful propagandism and of opinion making men seizing historic opportunities".3 Perhaps this was anticipating Gandhi, who was already meticulously pursuing Satyagraha far more as a way of life than merely as a technique of Conflict Resolution in South Africa. It is this similarity between Gandhi's non-violent resistance and the permanent institution of war, along with a few other characteristics common to both modes of settling disputes, that demands our attention with its promise of social practicability. However Satyagraha has also been characterized as "War without Violence" or "Conquest of Violence" Apart from Satyagraha, conflicts are solved in a variety of ways including coercion, "lumping it", (i.e. ignoring the issues that give rise to the conflict or avoidance such as by terminating a relationship) mediation, adjudication, arbitration, negotiation. It is true that Satyagraha is in many ways all-comprehensive in its application and it includes some of the above-mentioned methods such as mediation, arbitration, and negotiation. It is proposed to deal with Satyagraha in terms of:

Truth : Gandhi derived his theory of Satyagraha from his doctrine of truth. Satyagraha literally means Holding on to Truth. His Satyagraha was not an abstract philosophy but a philosophy of action. Hence, Gandhi's famous aphorism was "Action is my domain". Gandhi aptly called Satyagraha as power of Truth or Soul-force because it pits against the material or brute force of the opponent, the power of the spirit. Gandhi explained his belief in the need for absolutes by which to orient one's life: " A mere mechanical adherence to truth and nonviolence is likely to breakdown at the critical moment. Hence I have said that Truth is God.4 . . "Truth is that which you believe to be true at this moment and that is your God."5 In fact Gandhi came "to the conclusion that for myself, God is truth. But two years ago, I went a step further and said that Truth is God. You see the fine distinction between the two statements."6 It should be noted that Gandhi also makes a distinction between "Truth", that is Absolute Truth, "truth", being relative truth. Gandhi was not a monotheist, he did not believe in personal God. Gandhi was in essence a monist, as for him God was an impersonal all-pervading reality. Gandhi had discovered, early in his application of Satyagraha; "that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one's opponent but that it must be weaned from error by patience and sympathy, for what appears to be truth to one may appear to be error to the other."7 The final arbiter in times of "conflict" of how is one to decide whose truth is nearer to Truth, must remain "The still small voice within". This call of the "Voice of Conscience" is the highest call of all , and it must be obeyed at all costs as this "obedience is the law of our Being."8 As Gandhi pursued his experiments with truth, the concept settled solidly into the sphere of ethical consideration. The emphasis became increasingly centered upon the problem of means. Again Gandhi unequivocally declared "They say, "Means are after all means". I would say, "means are after all every thing." As the means so the end. There is no wall of separation between means and ends."9 Hence, for Gandhi means and ends are convertible terms. Aldous Huxley asserted that, "Good ends can only be achieved by the employment of appropriate means. The end can not justify the means for the simple reason that the means employed there in determined the nature of the ends produced."10 The law of reaping what you sow applied as much in this life as it affected future in socioeconomic-politico millieu. Gandhi prophetically observed: "There is a law of nature that a thing can be retained by the same means by which it has been acquired. A thing acquired by violence can be retained by violence alone.11 Gandhi made it clear that he believed his energies had to be devoted to looking after the purity of the means rather than to seeing if they would be most expedient way of achieving the immediate goal. "I feel that our progress towards the goal will be in exact proportion to the purity of means. The method may appear to be long, perhaps too long, but I am convinced that it is the shortest."12 Means can be chosen merely by deciding to live by certain rules.

Non-violence : Violence arises from ignorance or untruth, truth conversely arises out of non-violence. "Nonviolence and Truth are so intertwined that it is practically impossible to disentangle and separate them. They are like two sides of the same coin or rather a smooth unstamped metallic disc. Nevertheless, non-violence is the means, Truth is the end. Means to be means must always be with in our reach, and so Non-violence is our supreme duty."13 The discovery of truth is not dependent upon violence; it is in fact obscured by violence. The need for violence is often a sign of insecurity and incomplete conviction and that through it victory becomes more important than Truth. It is self evident that if violence is used in a conflict situation, the sin and the sinner can no longer be separated. The arguments against violence, revolve round certain assumptions which can be summarized as follows: (1) Continuity, i.e. once you resort to violence, you cannot escape it; (2) Reciprocity: that is violence creates, begets and procreates violence. (3) sameness: i.e. it is impossible to distinguish between justified and unjustified violence. No matter how high the goal, violence reduces all practitioners to the same level; (4) Violence begets only further violence, that is the ends grow out of the means used; (5) Violence needs to be justified, but such justification is hypocritical; there is no pure violence - violence and hatred are always linked together. For Gandhi non-violence means far more than what is implied by the apparent negative terminology. Gandhi firmly believed that such non-violence must be lived day by day. "It is not like a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart and it must be an inseparable part of our very being. 14 At the same time practising non-violence as a policy, however, may be useful in that there is always a hope of the policy developing into a creed. Gandhi was deeply influenced by Tolstoy's writing on non-violence. Tolstoy fervently believed in the Christian injunction: "Resist not evil"; and by ordering one's life in a completely moral way, one should allow the Evil of violence to die like the dead leaves in autumn. However much Gandhi may have admired Tolstoy, it was at this point that Gandhi showed a remarkable departure. Gandhi believed in institutions; Gandhi also held that he could not wait until a sufficiently large number of men and women had started re-ordering their lives. Gandhi fervently believed and practised that men had to begin to resist evil of violence individually and collectively by means of progressive non-cooperation. Gandhi added that the war against violence must be carried into the enemy's camp. But all this should be by non-violent means alone. Hence Gandhi's prophetic observation "Organization is the test of non-violence." In this context, it is very significant to remember that Gandhi's alchemic-genius was to turn the given "situation" of forcibly disarmed people both in South Africa and especially in India, into an "opportunity" to demonstrate the relevance and efficacy of Satyagraha as a technique of non-violent mass struggle for freedom and justice.

Creative self-suffering : Gandhi prophetically observed "The conviction has been growing upon me that things of Fundamental importance to the people are not secured by reason alone, but have to be purchased with their suffering. If you want something really important to be done, you must not merely satisfy the reason, you must move the heart also. The penetration of the heart comes from suffering. It opens the finer understanding in man."15 Tolstoy encapsulates one of the reasons that self-suffering is so important for Satyagraha. The role of self suffering is to break the dead-lock, to cut through the rationalized defenses of the opponent. However Gandhi warned that the self suffering undertaken had to be functional; Gandhi was not in favour of martyrs of suffering not caused by acts conducive to the solution of the present or future conflicts. The opponent must be not encouraged to act against the Satyagrahi to invite self suffering because brutalizing the adversary can but make his conversion the more difficult. The secret of Satyagraha lies in not tempting the wrong-doer to do the wrong. Even where self suffering does not touch the conscience of the opponent it can have objective benefits in a conflict situation especially in social conflicts. The opponent may be converted indirectly, if the endured suffering moves public opinion to the side of the satyagrahis. Gandhi has claimed that the method of reaching the heart is to awaken public opinion. Hence care must be taken to ensure that self abnegation becomes self-affirmation and a tool of truth rather than a weapon of revenge. It should be remembered that self-suffering is the price paid for maintaining resistance in a non-violent way. Finally the resort to self-suffering and voluntary submission to injury is a positive creed and is not merely a matter of last resort.

Faith in human goodness : The entire rationale of Satyagraha, which sees conversion of the opponent as its aim must rest upon the assumption that the opponent is open to reasons, that they have a conscience, that human nature is such that it is bound or at least likely, to respond to any noble and friendly action. Gandhi firmly states that "Every one of us is a mixture of good and evil. The difference that there is between human beings is a difference of degree."16 This belief must be remembered in times of conflict and applied to the opponent in such a way that their dignity as a person and the respect it commands is not infringed, that the opponent is given the same credit in this matter that the Satyagrahi would demand for himself. Gandhi further emphasized: "Not to believe in this possibility of permanent peace is to disbelieve in the goodness of human nature . . Every man may know and most of them do know what is a just and an unjust act."17 This however, need not imply that large areas of non-rationality do not occur in human motivations or behaviour. A belief in this combination of reason and goodness allows for a faith in the possibility of conversion and although this process may take considerable time. In a study looking at the social interactions of competitors and cooperators, it has been concluded that, although competitive people are often faced with social relationships where

cooperation rather than competition is more effective. Satyagraha rests on the belief that opponents can in fact be influenced to alter their dispositions and their world views.

Fearlessness: A certain amount of courage is obviously necessary to endure self-suffering and to Gandhi it was an axiom that "non-violence and cowardice are contradictory terms. The path of true nonviolence requires much more courage than violence." However, Gandhi firmly believed that it was possible for a violent person to someday become non-violent, there being no such hope for cowards. Along with his famous dictum that violence was preferable to cowardice, Gandhi explained that "although violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self defense, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission." An atmosphere for fear and impotence makes people helpless even to accomplish the simplest of things. Without fearlessness the growth of other qualities becomes next to impossible. The courage that Satyagraha calls for is not dependent on physical strength. The toughest muscle has been known to tremble before an imaginary fear. Finally fearlessness can and must come from determined and constant endeavour, by cultivating self-confidence and from an indomitable will. We may now turn to the types of non-violent action. In conflict situations, success through non-violent action can be achieved in three separate ways:

Accommodation: Where the opponent does not believe in the changes made nevertheless believes that it is best to give in some or all points to gain peace or to cut losses.

Non-violent Coercion: Where the opponent wants to continue the struggle but cannot because they have lost sources of power and means of control.

Conversion: Where the opponents have changed inwardly to the degree that they want to make the changes desired by non-violent activist or indeed the non-violent activist himself has so changed. The first two modes of non-violent conflict resolution are based on power that the respective parties can exert on each other. Conversion on the other hand, operates outside the framework of the interplay between power and powerlessness the touching of the conscience involves a totally different dynamic.

The Gandhian technique of Satyagraha rests on the belief that the striving for conversion is the most effective method of conducting a struggle on a pragmatic assessment of the outcome, but more than that it is the morally correct way to conduct conflict because only through a dialectical process can truth be arrived at.

The Dialectics of Satyagraha : Violence to persons and properties has more often the effect of clouding the real issues involved in the original conflict, while non-coercive, non-violent action invites the parties to a dialogue about the issues themselves. Gandhi therefore, warns that we must hate the sin and not the sinner. Bondurant states that Gandhi "fashioned a method of conflict in the exercise of which a man could come to know what he is and what it means to evolve.In Satyagraha the dogma gives way to an open exploration of context. The objective is not to assert propositions, but to create possibilities. The Satyagrahi involves himself in acts of ethical existence. This process forces a continuing examination of one's own motives, examination undertaken within the context of relationships as they change towards a new restructured and reintegrated pattern.18 The dialectical process is essentially creative and inherently constructive. Hence while satyagrahis try to convert, they must themselves also remain open to persuasion.The essential nature of moral appeals in Satyagraha are such that they call for response that can be either given or withheld by those towards whom they are directed. Therefore Satyagraha goes beyond redressing merely the immediate grievance that has surfaced as conflict, but aims to resolve the distrust and friction that are underlying the sources of conflict. Process of Satyagraha: The success of a Satyagraha campaign to resolve any conflict rests on three basic assumptions. They are : That there can always be found some elements of common interest to all the contending parties; That the parties are or at least might be amenable to an appeal to the heart and mind; That those in a position to commence Satyagraha are also in a position to carry it through to the end. If these prerequisites are fulfilled, the scene is set for the process aimed at the required conversion to be initiated. This can involve several steps, reasoning with the opponent, then persuasion through self suffering wherein the Satyagrahi attempts to dramatize the issues at stake and to get through to the opponent's unprejudiced judgement so that he may willingly come again onto a level where he may be persuaded through natural argument. This is the

process of moral appeal through self suffering in lieu of coercion. Gandhi himself summarizes this process: "I seek entirely to blunt the edge of the tyrant's sword, not by putting up against a sharper edged weapon, but by disappointing his expectation that I would be offering physical resistance".19 Hence if the attempts at conversion through these measures fail, the tools of non-cooperation or civil disobedience may be brought into play. Given this presentation of moral Equivalent of War or Satyagraha as a background paper, it is now left open to examine and test the efficacy of Satyagraha by referring to certain recurring points of debate or controversy. The role of the individual especially the charismatic personality in Satyagraha. Pacifism and Satyagraha Satyagraha as a way of life and as a process or weapon of conflict resolution. Satyagraha against incorrigible violence.

Introduction With the multiplication and escalation of conflicts at various levels, the need for conflict resolution has become urgent than ever before. There has been a government realization among governments, international organization and non-governmental organization that more resources and time need to be set apart for managing conflicts and that the work for peace has to place by harnessing the cooperation of several agencies at different levels. Governments by virtue of their rigid structure very often failed to address adequately questions related to conflicts of a delicate and complex nature. Also failed agencies and resources available with governments have been founding inadequate in this respect. The latest tendency is to search for other tracks of conflict resolution and also resources to compliment government effort.

Towards Multi-Track Approach The movement from 'track - one diplomacy' 1 to 'track - two diplomacy' 2 resulted in the emergency of a large number of actors in conflict resolution and peace building process. John McDonald and Louis Diamond have identified nine actor categories or tracks in conflict resolution : official diplomacy, education, research and training, business, funding, media and communication, religion, NGOs and advocacy groups and private citizens 3 . In addition to these group of actors the Carnegie Commission recognized the role of the UN and religion organizations in peace building process 4 . Barnett Rubin and Susana Campbell in a study for the Canter for Preventive Action pointed out that "the multiplicity and variety of actors involved in generating conflicts requires a similar multiplicity of international partners to resolve them" 5 .

Multidimensional nature of conflicts has been partly in giving rise to the concept of a multi - track approach in conflict resolution. According to Diamond and McDonald Multi-track diplomacy is "a conceptual framework designed .... to reflect the variety of activities that contribute to international peacemaking". They pointed out that track two diplomacy is designed (1) to reduce or resolve conflict between groups or nations by improving communications, understanding and relationships; (2) to lower tension, anger, fear or misunderstanding by humanizing and "face of the enemy" and giving people direct personal experience of one another; (3) to affect the thinking and action of trackone (i.e. official diplomacy) by exploring diplomacy options without prejudice, thereby preparing the ground for move formal negotiations for re-framing policies. The successful resolution of conflict mainly depends on track - two diplomacy complimenting track - one diplomacy. Thus a combined effort of track-one and track-two becomes in t he process of conflict resolution.

NGOs and International Agencies Over the years there has been a tremendous increase in the number of NGOs., so also the variety of their activities and their geographical spread. Because most of the NGOs are involved in works relating to development, relief and advocacy, which are of direct and visible benefit to the people, they have achieved a high degree of good will. In addition, many of the NGOs have skilled personnel who can intervene in conflict situations creatively in order to bring resolution. This fact has been recognizes by the United Nations as well as international funding agencies like the World Bank who now bank upon the resources of NGOs for conflict resolution, particularly in areas like early warning, third party intervention, reconciliation, particularly in areas like early warning, third party intervention, reconciliation and peace building. The UN General Assembly recognized the role of NGOs and called upon the UN Department of Public Information ( DPI) to work with NGOs interested in communicating information about the United Nations. In continuation of the General Assembly resolution, the NGOs and Institutional Relations Section was established within DPI to provide information and other liaison services to the growing number of NGOs accredited to the United Nations. In 1968, the UN Economic and Social Council formalized its consultative relationship with NGOs. However it is to be noted that NGOs were not given any formal status in the General Assembly or other powerful bodies like the Security Council. Now NGOs have become key partners i development assistance especially to less developed countries from international agencies like the UN, the European Union and the World bank. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former Secretary General of the UN affirmed that NGOs "are an indispensable part of the legitimacy without which no international activity can be meaningful.

The Role of NGOs NGOs constitute an essential part of civil society and they have the potential to play key roles in resolving conflicts and restoring civil society. NGOs can support to form well knit local infrastructures or peace constituencies comprising of people from different sectors of civil society whose aim is to attain sustainable peace and whose activities are based on long term commitment. NGOs should invest more resources for capacity building activities at different levels. It involves the training of own staff, identifying indigenous partners, local leaders and so on, NGOs can act as mediators to bring consensus among different conflicting groups with the help of local peace constituencies. Pamela Aall suggests a number of roles that NGO's can play in the peace making process. NGOs should presume their traditional relief and rehabilitation activities with a long-term perspective. "The initial emergency relief response should be linked to a set of activities that leads to the transformation of those conflicts in a way that promotes sustained and comprehensive reconciliation among the warring parties". Aall cautions us against the dangers of using external resources in relief and rehabilitation activities. Excessive use of external resources can foster dependence and passivity. It can also become a new object of contention, inadvertently fueling the conflict. NGOs should mobilize local resources which empower the people and enroll new participants into their activities, especially women who have often been kept passive in the peace process. NGOs should continue to monitor human rights abuses. They should undertake the task of providing an early warning of potentially violent conflicts and should pursue conflict resolution activities.Aall warns that these roles must be kept separate both of the safety of NGO workers and in order for it to be effective.

Prerequisites To work effectively in a conflicting situation NGOs should preserve their own identities and neutrality and should appear to be impartial. Unofficial status of NGOs provides more access to conflicting parties, which helps in the process of negotiation. The long-term commitment of NGOs is a crucial factor in establishing trust among the people and to attend to the goal of lasting peace. Pamela A all prescribes four conditions for NGOs more directly engaging in conflict resolution activities: (1) the NGO must be very familiar with the country, issues and participants in the conflict (2) the NGO should have indigenous partners (3) NGO staff must be well grounded in conflict resolution skills and knowledge and (4) NGO workers must understand and accept the personal risk they run in attempting to intervene directly in the conflict.

The Three Levels of Conflict Resolution: Morality, Politics and Direct Action Life is full of conflicts. A conflict occurs whenever individuals or groups have competing goals. This article is mainly concerned with conflicts between human beings, but it does make comparisons with other animals. Most conflicts between humans appear in the context of a human society. An exception would be when two individuals are stranded together on a desert island. Methods of conflict resolution can be classified according to the degree to which the outcome is determined by the context of the surrounding society. Morality Morality is a set of rules used for resolving conflicts which almost everyone in society agrees with. It is therefore the highest level of conflict resolution. Politics Politics is the process of getting as many people as possible on your side. The general idea is that the more people you can get to agree with you, the more chance you have of being the winner. Direct Action Direct action refers to methods of conflict resolution that either ignore or positively avoid interaction with society external to the parties in the conflict (of course a large scale conflict may involve everyone in a society, in which case there is no one external to the conflict). It is therefore the lowest level of conflict resolution. Some Examples I have a nice television set. You would like to have my television set. At the level of morality we say that is wrong to steal. At the level of politics we vote for laws which make it illegal to steal. At the level of direct action, you break into my house when I'm not at home and you steal my television set. I have some food, you are starving. You want some of my food. At the level of morality we realise that it is wrong to let a starving man die. At the level of politics we vote for progressive taxation and social welfare. At the level of direct action you just take my food. Interaction Between Levels Each level depends on the levels below it. Morality resolves conflicts because it implies that there is an overwhelming consensus in favour of the moral rules. A moral consensus implies that the outcome of a political battle is predetermined. Politics resolves conflicts because it is assumed that a larger group will win a fight with a smaller group. When the assumption is tested in practice, then you may have some type of war or revolution on your hands.

Understanding this dependence can help us to avoid unpleasant surprises. Moral rules do not exist by themselves. They only exist if most people believe in them, and if a large number of people are prepared to go to some trouble to enforce those rules. Politics only works if it can ultimately be translated into direct action. Circumstances can change for a number of reasons. People change their minds about what is important. New technology can increase or decrease the effectiveness of different types of direct action. A moral rule can disappear just because it is unenforceable. Those who think that morality is a fixed set of rules are constantly under the impression that morality is "breaking down". They are a bit like those people who think language is meant to be fixed, in which case English, or whatever language they speak, appears to be constantly "breaking down". In western societies we tend to think of politics in the context of western democracy. But politics is relevant even in undemocratic societies, as long as gaining the support of a group has some relevance to resolving a conflict. In some cases political action in a democracy can result in the destruction of that same democracy. For example someone may convince a substantial minority that it is worth going to considerable trouble to wrest power from the majority that support the existing system. For this reason, even citizens of a democracy have to be constantly on their toes. They must also be careful to avoid the "tyranny of the majority", just in case a beleaguered minority feels that it is forced to fight back outside the ballot box. Most of what people call "moral issues" are actually conflicts whose resolution is not quite based on morality because the overwhelming consensus required does not exist. War is often regarded as being immoral, because it involves whole societies performing actions against each other which would be regarded as obviously immoral if carried out between individuals within a society. But if we define morality in terms of overwhelming consensus, then we can see that it does not make sense to say that war is immoral. Because if there was an overwhelming consensus against it, you would not have a war in the first place. It may make sense for a large community of nations to define a war as immoral if it only involves a very small proportion of the total number of nations. So civil war is "bad", but world war is OK. World war can seem like an immoral idea when we are not having a world war, but if we are not having a world war then that is quite consistent with the hypothesis that an overwhelming majority of people in the world are currently against the idea of a world war. A world war can also be defined as immoral if it is somehow instigated by a very small minority of individuals in the world, i.e. by those at the "top" without any consultation from those "below". But if we are having a world war, and a large number of people in the countries involved in the war are in favour of continuing to fight, then in that circumstance it does not make any sense to say that the war is immoral. A Better Understanding of Conflict Resolution When we realise that morality, politics and more direct means of conflict resolution do not exist completely independently of each other, we can develop a better understanding of what happens in actual conflicts. These may be conflicts that happen to us personally, or ones that

we hear about in the news. We can look for all three levels of conflict resolution, and we can also look for the interactions between the different levels. With a better analysis we may be better able to predict the final outcome of the ongoing conflicts that we observe, and even influence the outcomes to be more in our own favour than would otherwise be the case. Conclusion State is often seen as one of the parties in a large number of conflicts. Therefore, it is important for NGOs to maintain their independence without loosing trust of the conflicting parties including the state. NGOs should work in co-operation and co-ordination with each other to reduce duplication in their activities. In this process NGOs should not loose their individual identities. Coordination and networking of NGOs is a key factor in lobbying and advocacy at a higher level... NGOs should limit their scope of work to mere conflict resolution, but expand to address the root causes of conflict and enhance the process of peace building. Hence, the role of the NGOs in conflict resolution is based on their presence at the ground level as actors with a reservoir of good will generated through years of development and rehabilitation work. Apart from creating a congenial atmosphere for negotiations, where the prospects for such negotiations are not visible at the level of the conflicting actors, the NGOs can play a key role in many intractable conflicts. Peace building is now seen as a part of sustaining agreements reached. No organization is perhaps more equipped that the NGOs in undertaking this task. However, in order to play a more effective role in conflict management, the NGOs may have to reorient themselves with the requisite and attitude and skills, which of course should be seen as an additional element of their development work.