|
|
|
|
Planting Seeds
The flourishing of a multi-track peace process in Cyprus in the 1990’s can be attributed to three main factors: intentionality, synergy, and synchronicity. In this article, Louise Diamond, President of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy, examines the role of these three factors in the success -and the challenges- of social peace-building on the island.
Our work in Cyprus began in 1991. Although Ambassador John McDonald and I had not yet opened the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy (IMTD), we had already written the first book on the subject (‘Multi-Track Diplomacy - A Systems Approach to Peace’) and were eager to see how the theory played out in practice. The invitation to become a third party player in Cyprus gave us our first opportunity to test these ideas in action.
Our initial two years of intense work in Cyprus were about creating a firm foundation. First, we wanted to build on what had gone before: the seminal Track Two work of John Burton, Chris Mitchell, Herb Kelman, Leonard Doob and Ron Fisher, in particular. We did this through consultations with some of them and with many of the Turkish- and Greek-Cypriots they had worked with, asking the question how we might add to the work already done there and make the next contribution. The response we got, almost immediately, was not to run more problem-solving workshops, but to teach the skills of conflict resolution so that, in the words of one participant, ‘We can have those tools in our own hands.’
In responding to that request, we determined that creating a firm foundation for a multi-track process required being sensitive to the need for organic growth of the work in the unique circumstances of Cyprus where, at that time, there was very little bi-communal contact and no general knowledge about the principles and practices of peace-building. Therefore, we spent two years generating a base of support separately in each community, by slowly introducing conflict resolution through workshops and public talks. These workshops, and the wide round of local consultations that accompanied them, served the dual purpose of creating confidence in the concepts and methods of conflict resolution and trust in us as a useful, reliable and impartial third party.
Two other effects emerged from this slow development process. First, we were able to inform and gradually engage the US Embassy team, which was to prove extremely significant later. Next, the step-by-step building process generated a solid core group in each community who, having tested each new round of concepts and skills within their own family, work and communal settings, were then eager to meet with their counterparts from the other side to explore the relevance of this work to the bi-communal relationship and to the Cyprus question.
From the original consultations with previous third parties, our work in Cyprus was dedicated to modelling partnership and inclusivity. Our earliest and most consistent partners were the local peacebuilders themselves. All of our activities in those first years were organized by a growing group of Greek- and Turkish-Cypriots who became advocates and allies in the work. It was clear to all that we were there to serve them in their declared bid to be change agents in and between their two communities, promoting rapprochement, reconciliation and peace-building at all levels of society. Thus some of the earliest work in conflict resolution was applied in family life, in gender relations, in political parties and between political factions - all within the same community.
We saw this core group of committed peacebuilders as our primary partner, and so helped institutionalize that relationship by creating a Bi-Communal Steering Committee. This committee met several times in those early days, with and without our presence, to set goals, offer programs, coordinate conflict resolution activity and third party visits, and maintain good communication with the political leadership in both local communities and with the international presence on the island as well. While this group eventually faded out of the picture, due to the success of the bi-communal work, which ultimately overwhelmed the local capacity for coordination just by sheer numbers of people involved, its presence in the early years was a critical factor in assuring local ownership and legitimacy for the process, as well as in providing transparency and accountability.
Our work evolved through an organic and progressive process of partnering. While many individuals, organisations, agencies, governments and inter-governmental bodies were to become involved, I will highlight here only a few of the key partnerships whose synergistic interactions moved the process exponentially forward.
The first of these, and completely central to our work, was the US Fulbright Commission on Cyprus. Funded by the US government, and connected, therefore, to the US Embassy in Cyprus through its Board, the Fulbright Commission was nonetheless seen as the only ‘local’ organisation that had the credibility to sponsor and convene groups within and between
the two communities. With offices on each side of the ‘Green Line’ staffed by local people (and eventually its own meeting centre located in the UN Buffer Zone to accommodate all the bi-communal activity), and a strong history of supporting educational opportunities for young people from each side, this organisation had a long reach into elite circles in each community, and was trusted for its fairness, integrity and sensitivity.
The Fulbright Commission, under the leadership of its Executive Director, Daniel Hadjitoffi, recognized early on the power of this multi-track approach, and seeing the alignment with its own goals of building rapprochement and friendship, became an early, consistent and essential supporter of this process. Beginning in 1994, with the cooperation of AmidEast, a US-based organisation managing US money dedicated for Cyprus, they have hired a continuous march of Fulbright Scholars in residence on Cyprus, to facilitate the bi-communal process by introducing new skills, convening and supporting new bi-communal groups and managing several grant programs that brought us and other third parties in for special programs.
The international players whose engagement became equally as important were the US Embassy (and ultimately the US Government’s Special Envoys) and the office of the UN Special Representative for Cyprus. Our work has now spanned the tenure of three separate teams in each of those offices, each of whom has, progressively, seen the power of a bi-communal multi- track peace movement as entirely relevant to its policy goals, and has supported the process accordingly. This support has been invaluable, for it has been a valuable link to the Track One process, most especially in providing access to and pressure on political leaders in delicate moments and in giving international significance, through UN Security Council reports, US statements and other venues, to the bi-communal process. It also provided the umbrella of credibility within which this work could flourish, and that attracted high level influential players.
The other significant partnership to mention, which has formed the heart of the work since 1994, is our Institute’s joining with Conflict Management Group (and originally NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science) to form the Cyprus Consortium. This Consortium has been active to design and implement projects on and off of Cyprus, secure grants and donations, develop materials, engage in networking and outreach on Cyprus matters, and deliver a core set of programs that have formed the backbone of the Cyprus bi-communal citizens’ peace-building movement.
Briefly, these programs consisted for several years of bi-communal training events in conflict resolution and related matters. Sponsored by the Fulbright Commission and AmidEast, paid for with US money, and publicly supported by the US and the UN, these programs brought together large numbers of Turkish- and Greek-Cypriots from all walks of life for intensive, often residential, sessions of skill-building, dialogue and action planning for peace-building. Though some programs were for the general public, we soon started specializing in specific tracks, thus focusing at various times on educators, journalists, business and political leaders and youth. We also trained 50 trainers over the years, and provided coaching and mentoring as they went on to convene and facilitate their own bi-communal projects, dialogues and initiatives. We took pains to include the Fulbright Scholars on our training teams whenever possible, so that their day-to-day follow-up with these groups could insure seamlessness and harmony of approaches, thus guaranteeing that the participants would not experience third party dissonance or competition, and assuring a common vocabulary and set of experiences for all. The scholars, meanwhile, would help select participants for our programs, and we would all consult together on the evolution and progression of the work over time.
| ‘Many signed up to become involved, ready, for the first time in decades, to meet with ‘the other side.’ |
By late 1997, when all bi-communal contact was shut down by the Turkish-Cypriot authorities due to developments in the international political scene revolving around European Union issues, the bi-communal movement spawned by the activities described here was huge. It was engaging hundreds of people on a regular basis, and thousands for special events; there were special groups from various sectors (lawyers, psychologists, educators, musicians, business groups, political parties, college students, environmentalists, among others) meeting and working together on their own common interests; there were specialized programs for high level influentials looking at the dynamics of intractable conflicts in general and of Cyprus in particular. Indeed, many individuals trained in our programs hold high political and governmental offices, or wield influence in the decision-making and opinion-making institutions of their respective communities.
By then, other sponsors, funders, governments and agencies were running programs as well, some with us; some on their own. University researchers were writing about the Cyprus peace movement, and the local trainers were frequently being invited to conferences and special events around the world to share their experiences, activities, methodologies and views. Several Greek- and Turkish-Cypriots had enrolled in advanced degrees in the peace and conflict studies area, and many were teaching what they had learned in their own communities, in informal and formal settings.
Throughout this time, many of the people involved participated in television or radio shows, were interviewed in or wrote for newspapers and magazines, and appeared in public forums discussing both their bi-communal experiences and their views on the Cyprus matter. There is a self-published bi-communal magazine that contains stories, poems, art and think pieces about peace and rapprochement. There were special programs in the classrooms, linking children through letter-writing; there was an internet project linking adults via email and the web.
In short, until stopped by Track One authorities (though still existing on a less active scale), there was a flourishing multi-track peace-building movement in Cyprus engaged in creating a human infrastructure for peace in that troubled island. That movement was the result of an intentional, cooperative and synergistic set of organically evolving activities on the part of several entities and partnerships, both formal and informal.
It is impossible to quantify the changes in the hearts and minds of all these people, and those whose lives they’ve touched. The level of activity, however, can speak to the personal transformations that were occurring on a daily basis, as people came to have a direct experience of meeting ‘the other’ in a new way, developing an understanding of their perspective, and seeking the common good together.
The peace-building process described here took advantage of a rare set of conditions that made its success possible. First, the people were ready. Although there had been some Track Two initiatives previously when we began, and some sector-specific meetings, there had not yet been any massive involvement in bi-communal meetings. When the first publicity hit the streets criticizing those who attended our initial bi-communal events, one of the unexpected effects was to make public the information that such meetings could happen. With that knowledge, many signed up to become involved, ready, for the first time in decades, to meet with ‘the other side.’
Second, we should note that Cyprus is a small island, with a relatively small educated elite. In a system of this size, it is easier to identify and involve the key players, and to manage a systems-level focus. Word gets around a small society quickly, so information became accessible to a wide range of people. People know each other as in a small town, so networking is a natural element in the process.
Thirdly, Cyprus was basically undiscovered in the third party agenda. With the exception of the Track Two efforts mentioned previously, when we began working there, and for a very long time afterwards, we (the Consortium-Fulbright axis) were basically ‘the only show in town’. As the whole field of peace-building has progressed, and as the Cyprus situation has attracted the attention of that field, many more third parties are now involved, but for a time the field was spacious and uncomplicated.
Finally, the timing was propitious. We entered the system during a relative lull in the formal political scene (though negotiations were ongoing, the situation was basically calm), and were able to both take advantage of and contribute to a period of confidence building at the citizen level before the political and diplomatic storms broke on the European Union question in 1997.
This success story is not without its significant challenges and stress points. The most obvious disappointment is that we have not, to date, been able to make any noticeable impact on the formal Track One negotiation process, either in substance or process. As this article goes to print, the situation in Cyprus remains deadlocked and volatile. While we had many Track One players involved in our programs from both the Greek- and Turkish-Cypriot groups, we have not yet seen much positive transfer of their new perspectives into official policies. Indeed, we have, sadly, seen some negative transfer, as some in high positions have used what they learned to strengthen political positioning.
We are also frustrated, of course, by the fact that the political authorities can so completely close down all bi-communal activity for so long, despite the pressures of various governments and the UN. In this matter, we are especially concerned for the morale of the local peace-builders, whose momentum and enthusiasm has been so drastically tested. These are societies where, for whatever reasons, a tradition of civil disobedience has not manifested, so there is little in the way of ardent public demand for the re-starting of bi-communal activity. Quieter, more subtle strategies are being attempted, though some peace-builders have simply stepped away, feeling helpless, stymied and demoralized. For all of its multi-track depth, this process is still circumscribed by the ups and downs of the Track One scene.
Our work was also tested by the particularly strong dynamics of the conflict-habituated system in Cyprus. Because the tensions and patterns have been in play for so long, the assumptions, beliefs and behaviours that keep the conflict going are deeply embedded in the formal and informal aspects of the culture. The media, the educational systems, the political rhetoric, the daily discourse all work together to form a very limited lens through which people can experience their own situation, and these limitations act as powerful default settings throughout the system. Thus, when an individual or a group would break through into a new way of trusting or understanding, that learning would often be hard to hold on to as people returned to their daily lives, away from the support of the new culture of friendship, communication and cooperation that was growing within the bi-communal movement. The extended lack of opportunity to meet face to face has exacerbated this phenomenon.
A major challenge to the process came from its own success. As the bi-communal movement grew so rapidly, the ‘managers’ of the process on the ground -Fulbright staff, the Bi-Communal Steering Committee, the trainers group- became inundated with too many people, meetings, relationships, logistics and goals to keep up-to-date with. As a result, each new group that was formed tended to focus on itself, and bridges between the groups were hard to facilitate and sustain. Thus, various sub-sets became isolated within the larger process, and no one body was able to manage the integration and coordination that would have taken this movement to another level.
The Consortium also faced follow-up problems that mostly were a reflection of the difficulties of funding. Cyprus is not a place in the world that gets much high-level attention (although that is now changing somewhat), and few foundations and virtually no private individual donors were much interested in the happenings there. Thus the Consortium had to sit on the sidelines from a distance, unable to go with the flow of the process as much as it would have liked. We missed many opportunities, thereby, by not being in the right place at the right time, or by not being able to provide the ongoing personal support needed by the courageous and much-overworked local peacebuilders who were sacrificing their time, their personal lives and, in some cases, their livelihoods and personal safety, to keep the bi-communal process alive.
The story of multi-track diplomacy in Cyprus, with all its intentionality, its synergy and its synchronicity, is still unfolding. Though at the formal level things are stalemated, and the long string of relative lack of violence between the two communities remains fragile, seeds for a better way have been planted. These seeds grew in a burst of sunlight for a while, and now are hibernating in the dark and the cold. Some have already sent their delicious fragrance into the air, or dropped their fruit on fertile ground. Some will never grow, but those of us who have seen the incredible creativity, tenacity and dedication of the peace-builders in Cyprus know for sure that somehow, sometime, those seeds will come to full blossom, and the garden of peace that flourishes in Cyprus will be a gift of beauty and delight to all the world.
This article has been written by Louise Diamond.
Feedback please to
j.verhoeven@euconflict.org