|
The
Culture of Peace News Network (CPNN): Is there Room for Nikola
Balvin
Introduction The rapidly growing applications of online communication for e-commerce, commercial and internet disputes, using techniques such as online mediation, facilitated negotiation, arbitration and case appraisal represented the area of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) at the 2002 and 2003 UNESCAP ODR Forums (Conley-Tyler & Bretherton, 2003). Sophisticated systems such as SmartSettle, Square Trade and Cybersettle act as prototypes for practitioners of ODR, whose focus is to complement and enhance already established and well-functioning alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services with the assistance of the internet. ADR service providers aim to provide integrative solutions that benefit both parties and are often referred to as ‘win-win’ resolutions. The goal of integrative bargaining is to solve a given dispute in a manner that has the least negative impact on the involved parties (Sanson & Bretherton, 2001, in Christie, Wagner & Dunnan Winter (Eds)). Although parties involved in integrative negotiations are likely to learn new skills for approaching future conflict, the aim of such services is to solve the present dispute rather than teach new skills for conflict resolution. As ODR grows and expands, some practitioners speculated about the possibility of including conflict resolution and peace education websites under its umbrella. There are a number of sites, which use formats and rules similar to traditional ODR sites, with the aim of cultivating peaceful and non-violent approaches to conflict resolution. The Culture of Peace News Network (CPNN) is an example of a network of such sites, operating globally in six different languages. Similarly to traditional ODR sites, it uses third party intervention, rules and discussion boards to cultivate values of peace, not only applicable, but essential for successful resolution of any conflict or dispute. This paper highlights similarities in design and aims between CPNN and more traditional ODR sites, while also presenting the view, that there is room within the ODR field for well-structured and principled sites that promote the necessary underlying values for integrative conflict resolution. The Culture of Peace News Network (CPNN) is a network of websites encompassing eight different countries (China, http://peace.nankai.edu.cn; Australia, http://www.cpnn.org; France, http://www.isparis.edu/ispeace/; Greece, http://www.unesco.auth.gr/index.asp; USA, http://cpnn-usa.org; Japan, http://www.cpnn.net/; Russia, http://www.culture.of.peace.ru/; Jordan, http://www.unesco.org.jo/cpnn/ ), committed to the promotion of peace values through interactive online news exchange and discussion. The websites were created as part of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s (UNESCO) International Decade of Non-violence for the Children of the World project (www.cpnn.org). The project’s foundation are eight “peace keys” developed by a panel of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, believed to hold the values that “unlock the doors” to the promotion and cultivation of a culture of peace around the world (www.cpnn.org, 3 July 2004). The eight peace keys that underlie the culture of peace and all news exchange on CPNN are:
Building peace values is the main objective of CPNN and one of its strategies for fulfilling this goal is to use online communication to provide opportunities for ordinary citizens to share local and personal news with communities around the world (http://cpnn-usa.org). This idea is depicted in diagrammatic format in figure 1, reflecting the tendency of international mass media to report predominantly dramatic war events, resulting in distant global communities knowing little about each other’s local perspectives and practices of peace. Figure 1: CPNN’s cross-cultural exchange of local grassroots peace media, which predominantly remains unreported by international mainstream media.
A US website visitor articulated this objective by reflecting that CPNN is the peace news alternative to networks such as CNN, which tend to focus on war news (http://cpnn-usa.org, 3 July 2004). The global CPNN websites provide a safe space for ordinary people to share peace news and reflections from their daily lives with communities in other parts of the world. This allows an insight into how ordinary people in various countries participate in current affairs and contribute to peace-building, giving website visitors opportunities to learn international local news directly from their grassroots sources. Although the creation and objectives of CPNN are quite different to those of traditional ODR websites, there are many application similarities, such as a structured process, third party monitoring and adhering to strict rules. Anyone wishing to submit a report or participate in a CPNN discussion needs to follow the “rules of the game” (http://cpnn-usa.org). These rules are clearly displayed and repeatedly referred to, maximising user opportunity to utilise the service in an appropriate manner. This is similar to ODR websites such as Square Trade (www.squaretrade.com), where new users are required to read the Square Trade standards of practice along with their ethical guidelines prior to utilising the service. CPNN rules specify that reporters and discussants need to make a positive contribution to promoting at least one of the eight peace keys. The reports and messages need to be positive, brief, clearly written and avoid stereotypical, violent, sexist or racist language. They need to reflect trustworthy accounts, which promote peace as exciting and are applicable for discussion by a wide audience (http://cpnn-usa.org). Since the rules of CPNN writing may be subject to personal interpretation, a structured process ensures that all publications (i.e. communication between reporters and audience) are monitored by a trained moderator. An overview of this nine-step process on CPNN USA specifies, that when a reporter submits their story via email, it is reviewed by a trained CPNN moderator, who engages in active communication with the reporter about editing their story to comply with the ‘rules of the game’ (http://cpnn-usa.org). Once both parties are satisfied with the edited report, it is posted on the website with a discussion question for audience feedback and participation. When comparing this process to filing a case using Square Trade’s mediation system (www.squaretrade.com), the notion of third party intervention highlights one of the similarities between CPNN and traditional ODR processes. As portrayed in Figure 3, both systems employ a third party, who intervenes when necessary in the communication exchange of party 1 and party 2. In the case of CPNN, the third party is a moderator, whose role is to ensure that material submitted by party 1 (the reporter) is appropriate for party 2 (the desired peace building audience). The moderator plays the symbolic role of gatekeeper, guarding the integrity of the website. This results in communication between party 1 and party 2 being indirect and monitored, but also less offensive and more goal-focused. In Square Trade’s communication exchange, party 1 and 2 may use the system to engage in direct negotiations or request the assistance of a trained mediator, whose role is to “facilitate positive, solution-oriented discussion between the parties” (www.SquareTrade.com, 3 July 2004). At first glance, the Square Trade mediator appears more impartial than the CPNN moderator. The mediator’s role is to assist disputing parties in resolving conflict, using solutions the parties themselves, rather that the service provider, consider satisfactory. In comparison, the role of a CPNN moderator is to facilitate a news exchange website, which cultivates peace-building values and teaches approaches and attitudes that help prevent conflict or resolve it in an integrative manner. The moderator’s role is therefore more value and education oriented. It appears that a CPNN moderator applies more censorship and influence than a Square Trade mediator. It is however important to consider, that even though a mediator’s role is to remain impartial, their mere presence and willingness to facilitate integrative solutions is a reflection of specific values and approaches to conflict. Their involvement creates a neutral negotiation space, presenting a conflict resolution approach, which may differ from the one the parties may pursue on their own accord. A moderator or mediator signals to the involved parties that they are participating in a formal process, guided by its own principles and their willingness to engage in this process requires cooperation and adherence to prescribed norms and values. The presence of a facilitative third party within the two systems promotes values of integrative, non-violent conflict resolution, bridging a very important underlying goal between traditional ODR systems such as Square Trade with peace-building websites such as CPNN. Figure 3: Similarities in third party interventions between CPNN moderation process and Squaretrade mediation process.
Another similarity between ODR mediation and negotiation approaches and the peace-building methodologies of CPNN is the encouragement for users to think outside the constraints of their situation. The structure of most mediations and facilitated negotiations is based on Littlefield, Love, Peck and Wertheim’s (1993) conflict resolution model, which requires disputing parties to brainstorm creative options for win-win solutions. This approach encourages parties to envision an ideal integrative solution to their conflict, helping to identify common goals and providing hope and encouragement of reaching a successful outcome. CPNN also encourages its reporters and readers to think about their conflict situations from a different perspective by relating their experiences to at least one of the peace key values. This approach persuades website users to think of creative and integrative perspectives and solutions for present or potential conflict. Sanson and Bretherton proposed that envisaging the ideal resolution to one’s conflict provides an opportunity to “find ways to depict harmony in human relationships and explore [their own] visions of peace” (2001: 208, in Christie, Wagner, Dunann Winter (Eds)). By allowing users to envision ideal outcomes to their present situations, the approaches of both systems encourage innovative and positive resolutions to currently unresolved problems. Users of both systems (CPNN and traditional ODR mediation and negotiation sites) seek assistance, because they find themselves in situations they wish to change. The sites offer an opportunity to reflect on the troubling issues, envisage possible integrative outcomes and use a structured, goal-oriented process and a safe space to work towards the desired solutions. The above analysis of CPNN and more traditional ODR websites reveals that even though they were established to serve different purposes, there are many similarities in their structure, process and underlying goals and values. Both systems use online communication to exchange information between parties, adhering to specific rules and following a structured process. Both systems utilise a third party, who facilitates the underlying goals of reaching an integrative solution, while also representing values of non-violent, innovative approaches to conflict resolution. Despite the similarities in process and motives, it is clear that each system is utilised in different situations and attracts an audience with different needs. ODR systems are most likely to attract parties wishing to solve a particular dispute, while CPNN visitors are motivated by wishing to learn and share news and approaches to peace-building and conflict resolution. While the classification of ODR websites under the discipline of alternative dispute resolution is relatively uncontroversial, the classification of CPNN remains subject to debate. Figure 3 adapts a model by J.B Stephens (1994, in Taylor & Bernstein Miller (Eds)) to contextualise the multifaceted purpose of CPNN. The model proposes that conflict resolution lies midway between social change and social system maintenance with three fields of study (peace studies, alternative dispute resolution and conflict resolution) more applicable during different stages of this continuum. While the model clearly identifies peace studies, alternative dispute resolution and conflict resolution as separate areas of study, it also highlights the overlap between them and the common goal of facilitating non-violent conflict resolution. In Figure 3, CPNN is represented to encompass all three fields of study. CPNN reflects segments of peace studies by allowing website users to write and discuss related events and themes such as ‘schools and peace education’, ‘women making peace’, ‘the arts and a culture of peace’ and ‘making an effective peace movement’ (http://cpnn-usa.org, 3 July 2004). The field of conflict resolution is represented by discussion forum themes like ‘non-violence’ and ‘marches and protests’, where discussants communicate about non-violent resolutions to conflict. The field of alternative dispute resolution is not immediately obvious when considering the function of CPNN, but as noted earlier, allowing website users to discuss conflict in a principled manner teaches alternative perspectives on conflict situations and integrative approaches to resolving them. Through promotion of the eight peace keys, CPNN teaches its users about the fundamental values of a culture of peace. Once users are familiar with such values, they can practice them in conflict situations and personal disputes in line with non-violent conflict resolution and alternative dispute resolution strategies. By starting with the promotion of basic peace values and through the provision of a safe online space for discussion of peace and conflict, CPNN provides a service beneficial to all three areas of study. Figure 3: CPNN represented as facilitative and integrative of three disciplinary fields: Peace studies, Alternative Dispute Resolution and Conflict Resolution. The model is adapted from J.B. Stephens (1994). Gender and Conflict. In A. Taylor and J. Bernstein Miller (eds.) Conflict and Gender, 217-235. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc
The final question to consider remains whether the field of ODR can benefit from including broader peace building systems such as CPNN, or whether it is more sensible to keep defining the category using traditional ODR approaches such as online mediation, facilitated negotiation and arbitration. Ronald Fisher (1994) proposed that conflict resolution goals need to be based on humanistic and democratic values, which address equity in social structures, prevent escalation of destructive conflict and build suitable relationships between groups (cited in Sanson & Bretherton, 2001: 204, in Christie, Wagner, Dunann Winter (Eds)). He further argued that conflict needs to be transformed in an “enduring way” and that simply settling disputes and suppressing differences is not sufficient for integrative conflict resolution (Fisher, 1994, cited in Sanson & Bretherton, 2001: 204, in Christie, Wagner, Dunann Winter (Eds)). Including sites as CPNN in the ODR category would broaden the field to meet some of Fisher’s recommendation for ‘enduring’ conflict resolution, as these sites cultivate humanistic and democratic values and aim to bridge differences between groups. The 2004 UNESCAP ODR Forum differed from the 2002 and 2003 Forums by including discussion about applications of online communication for conflict transformation and peace building. As ODR is a new but rapidly emerging field, now may be the relevant time to reflect on its goals and values. Is the underlying goal of ODR to teach integrative solutions to conflict resolution and promote a global culture of peace, or is the field better suited for suppressing differences and settling random disputes as they come along? References: Littlefield, L., Love, A., Peck, C., & Wertheim, E. (1993). A model of resolving conflict: Some theoretical, empirical and practical implications. Australian Psychologist, 28, 80-85. Conley Tyler, M., & Bretherton, D. (2003). Seventy-six and counting: An analysis of ODR sites. In Katsh, E., & Choi, D. (Eds). Online Dispute Resolution (ODR): technology as the “Fourth Party”. Papers and Proceedings of the 2003 United Nations Forum on ODR (2003). J.B. Stephens (1994). Gender and Conflict. In A. Taylor and J. Bernstein Miller (Eds) Conflict and Gender, 217-235. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc Sanson, A., & Bretherton, D. (2001). Conflict Resolution: Theoretical and Practical Issues. In Christie, J. D., Wagner, R. V., & Dunann Winter, D. (Eds) Peace, Conflict and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century. Prentice-Hall Inc: New Jersey Websites: CPNN Australia http://www.cpnn.org last visited on 4 July 2004 CPNN China http://peace.nankai.edu.cn last visited on 30 June 2004 CPNN France http://www.isparis.edu/ispeace/ last visited on 30 June 2004 CPNN Greece http://www.unesco.auth.gr/index.asp last visited on 30 June 2004 CPNN Japan http://www.cpnn.net/ last visited on 30 June 2004 CPNN Jordan http://www.unesco.org.jo/cpnn/ last visited on 30 June 2004 CPNN Russia http://www.culture.of.peace.ru/ last visited on 30 June 2004 CPNN USA http://cpnn-usa.org last visited on 3 July 2004 Cybersettle www.cybersettle.com last visited on 3 July 2004 SmartSettle www.smartsettle.com last visited on 3 July 2004 Square Trade www.squaretrade.com last visited on 3 July 2004 The Claim Room www.theclaimroom.com last visited on 3 July 2004 |
![Text Box:
CONFLICT/PEACE FIELDS OF STUDY:
[--------Peace Studies--------] CPNN [--------Alternative Dispute Resolution--------]
[--------Conflict Resolution--------]
CONFLICT/PEACE PRACTICES:
Nonviolent Action-----------------------Mediation---------------------------Arbitration
Civil Disobedience Mini-Trials
SOCIAL SYSTEM
CHANGE MAINTANANCE](balvin_files/image004.gif)
