Conflict, Change and Conflict Resolution - Berghof Handbook for ...

Christopher R. Mitchell
5.3
Diminishing Conflict Intensity
Logically speaking, the changes necessary for moving a conflict away from increasing intensity
and towards mitigation and resolution should be clear, at least at an intellectual level. If there
are six basic dynamics that change a conflict in the direction of greater intensity – exacerbate
it, in other words – then the reversal of each of these dynamics, logically, should move the
conflict at least some way towards a resolution – towards being “ripe for resolution” in
Zartman’s phrase (1985, 2000). Clearly, if the process of the escalation of coercion and violence
increases the intensity of a conflict as well as its resistance to finding a solution, then a process
of de-escalation – of substituting benefit-conferring actions for harmful and damaging ones –
should bring about some change in the opposite direction. A similar argument can be made for
each of the conflict exacerbating dynamics discussed above. In principle, to set the stage for a
successful conflict resolution process, changes amounting to a reversal of each of the
exacerbating dynamics need to be made. Other parties and interests that have become involved
in the original conflict need to be disentangled (disengagement). Contacts (appropriately
managed) need to be restored. Inter-party communication channels need to be reopened and the
resultant communication made at least more nuanced and complicated than the simple exchange
of accusations and justifications (re-communication). Each party’s underlying needs and
interests need to be revived and reviewed to see what crucial goal incompatibilities still lie at
the heart of their conflict and the practice of opposing for the sake of opposition abandoned
(de-isolation). Intra-party decision-making needs to be re-balanced to allow for the input of
ideas from those whose immediate task is not tomorrow’s defence against violence or the shortterm
implementation of counter-coercion measures (de-mobilisation or demilitarisation).
Finally, ways have to be found to reverse entrapment processes and to enable policy decisions
to be made with an eye to realistic future opportunities and limitations rather than past aims,
promises, investments and sacrifices (decommitment).
Theoretically speaking, then, for each dynamic that exacerbates conflict there should be
another that ameliorates or mitigates it:
Table 1: Conflict Exacerbation and Mitigation
Conflict Exacerbating Dynamics Conflict Mitigating Dynamics
Escalation De-escalation
Mobilisation De-mobilisation / Demilitarisation
Polarisation De-isolation
Enlargement Disengagement
Dissociation Re-communication
Entrapment Decommitment
88