Kelman, H.C. “The Role of the Scholar-Practitioner in International Conflict Resolution.” International Studies Perspectives (2000), No. 1, pp. 273-288. Available online.
The Article
The area of conflict resolution and peace studies in international relations originates following the world wars among a small group of scholars. The area became an emergent area of study throughout the 1970s and particularly following the Cold War, though it fails to gain much momentum and have much influence. The article provides a glimpse of the area of international conflict resolution in the post-Cold War era by detailing the work of a scholar practitioner facing the challenge of finding “ways of preventing and resolving conflicts and building new relationships conducive to stable peace and mutually enhancing cooperation” (Kelman 2000, p. 273). The author details an approach to resolving protracted conflicts through what has become known as interactive problem solving and track two diplomacy, introducing the work undertaken in the Palestinian and Israeli conflict with note on the work done in other areas of the world through Harvard’s Program on International Conflict Analysis and Resolution (PICAR) at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.
Kelman (2000) details the processes involved in track two diplomatic problem solving workshops as a microcosm for interactive conflict resolution, specifically influenced by the work of John Burton, where participants include individuals “politically involved and often politically influential . . . parliamentarians, leaders and activists of political parties or political movements, journalists, editors, directors of think tanks, or politically involved academicians” (pp. 274-275). The author summarizes the “ground rules” for interactive problem solving, including the importance of privacy and confidentiality, the need for an environment where third parties and constituencies do not intervene, analytical discussion, and the need for workshop coordinators that assume a facilitative role, etc. The article also provides detail on the goals and objectives with the agenda for workshops and brief insights into some of the recent efforts undertaken in Palestinian and Israeli relations. The claim is that the workshops produce a learning environment for those that influence diplomatic outcomes, wherefrom change can be achieved without the loss of political credibility for leaders directly within the sphere of influence of their communities.
The article then offers qualitative analysis of how the micro processes of track two diplomacy serve to develop understandings of the macro processes of the conflict and diplomatic relations. The fundamental goal of the workshops is thus to promote change “through face-to-face interaction in small groups – as a vehicle for change in larger social systems; in national policy, and in the conflict system at large” (Kelman 2000, p. 279). Kelman (2000) maintains that the workshops aim to generate change with diplomatic relations in four fundamental ways, including through input into the larger processes of problem solving, to serve as a metaphor for understanding the social-psychological processes, to shape ideas and meet the goals of a shared agenda, and to create a supportive political environment for negotiations. The author then addresses the need for unofficial track two diplomacy to accomplish what official diplomacy and track one cannot achieve alone as well as the relationship between scholarship and practice in diplomatic problem solving. The article concludes with discussion of the role of the university system in providing for an academic setting to advance research and the need to institutionalize methods.
Reflection
This was my first introduction to the work of Herbert Kelman as well as my introduction to the area of conflict resolution. While the article initially provided inspiration and optimism, the research seemed to me to do little to legitimize the methods. However, Kelman’s work is more extensive than I had known when first introduced to the area. The author provides yet another way of understanding how relations between states and diplomacy can be improved to meet agreeable outcomes through peaceful means of conflict resolution. While Kelman’s work provided a valuable window into understanding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it also set a framework for my study of the conflict in Northern Ireland where similar methods were utilized to produce the 1998 Belfast Agreement (just as track two diplomacy has been credited for influencing the success of the 1993 Olso Accord). While equivalent methods for conflict resolution within actual communities directly involved in the conflict have been undertaken in Palestine and Israel, the case of Northern Ireland provides for a more extensive example of how methods can be institutionalized and bridged with the community. Much work still needs to be done to legitimize the methods. Successes have proven to be beneficial to the area, but the failure to harmonize macro and micro processes might prove to be detrimental to its acceptance as a necessary and critical area of study for solving conflicts and international relations in general. The need to pursue such solutions in a post-Cold War environment deserves a lot of attention.
