Conflict Resolution and Peacemaking

PLEASE DO NOT PLAGIARIZE THIS PAPER...............

Conflict Resolution and Peacemaking Peace is mutually beneficial relationship, which has low levels of aggression and hostility. Peacemaking is an effort to resolve parties in conflict. Before peacemaking has an influence on a situation there needs to be a conflict. One such conflict is the Iraq War. A group of people make camps in the war zones helping the people fight against the war, by developing relationships and giving a sense of empowerment to the Iraqi people. Myers (2010) believes in four key ingredients for peacemaking. Comparing these ingredients with the article from Culbertson will show how peacemaking even from a small group can be accomplished. Peacemaking is bringing a conflict to a resolution, a closer look at an article that deals with peacemaking will assist in understanding, as will the four C’s to peacemaking.
Peacemaking Defined Peace is not just suppressing conflict; it is the creative management of conflict (Myer, 2010). Peace comes when the parties can reconcile difference and reach an accord. Peace is also a low-level violence, when the involved parties seem to be harmonious. Peacemaking brings toxic forces and destructive conflict to a constructive resolution. Peacemaking helps to establish equal power that will help ward off any future conflict. This new equal power will bring an understanding to all parties previously in conflict. Peacemaking can take close fits and convert them into open arms bring foes together in friendship. Peacemaking is making peace by settling disputes between groups, individuals, nations, communities, and even within families. Peacemaking comes from the four C’s of peacemaking contact, communication, cooperation, and conciliation. An article about such a calibration (p51-4, 3-4) written by (H.M Culberson, 2006) on a Hope and Peace Journey in America speaks of the Nonviolent Peacemaking in Iraq.

The Journal Article In this article the subject to discuss is the opposition of how the United States feels about the war in Iraq. A religion-based peacemaking organization assists in this anti-war movement, the Christian Peacemaking Teams, here on known as CPTs. The Gishes’ are a husband and wife team taking a stand against the war believing that relationship building is important. The Gishes are long time activists and have worked in various parts of the world, opposing the war, seeking social justice. According to Culbertson (2006), CPTs live near or in conflicting areas, claiming to be nonpartisan, but tend to favor the people on the receiving end of the bullets (Para. 3). The members work in small groups, and develop friendships with the people they are living with, by facing the same dangers as the people in crisis are. The article discusses, how even a few people can make a difference giving a sense of togetherness that can aid with an understanding. These groups also help build a sense of empowerment by working to have detainees released. How does this article of peacemaking compare to social psychology theory of peacemaking? The four C’s of Peacemaking According to Myers (2010), the four key ingredients to peace making are the four C’s: contact, cooperation, communication, and conciliation (p. 499). The first step is contact; contact can predict tolerance, an increased contact will decrease prejudice in a situation. In this article the subject to discuss that the Gishes make contact with the other side, showing them favor, and standing between the men with weapons and the people they feel are innocent. They believe contact with one-on-one relationships make a difference by listening to Palestinians, and make it appoint to speak with the Israeli soldiers and settlers. This contact was also done in small groups were opposing groups can understand each other. The second C or cooperation is seen when Peggy Gishes and colleagues meet with the American Special Forces at huge risk, but this also helped them earn credibility amount locals (Culbertson, 2006). CPT members also worked hard for the release of captives. Reaching out to make the difference can help the anxiety that marks initial intergroup contact and form friendships. Forming a friendship develops a positive attitude and will help diminish stress, and form more emotional ties (Culbertson, 2006). Cooperation also gives empowerment to the people who suffer oppression believing in discrimination against them. This empowerment can be seen as equal status contact when the CPT member is ridiculed by children in the village makes light of the situation and “plays along” bringing laughter and defusing tempers. CPT members living in the villages, and sharing the same threats gives them the same common external threats as the Iraqis. This gives the CPT’s and the Iraqis a common enemy, unifying the group. This unification also helps to super ordinate goals, the CPT member live in the camps, share food with the villagers, and under the same attacks; they work with the people for freedom against the war. The CPT will also challenge those are purveyors of injustice. This challenge brings the need for cooperation. Communication helps resolve differences when parties are in conflict. An arbitrator can help resolve the issue, by submitting disagreements, to someone who can issues and impose a settlement (Myers, 2010). Within the fore mentioned article, the CPT acts as communicator for the natives and the invader within this community. The Gishes even went as-far-as they were concerned possible to speak with American Special Forces, before an invasion as to help save some of the innocent (Culbertson, 2006). This is not always an easy task as some will demand more than others and will often receive more to reach an agreement. The Gishes family acted as mediators they had to work under threat to gain the respect of local citizens. In the article case the mediators also stopped the people with guns from acting upon hatred. The CPT listens to all sides of a dispute; Art Gishes would speak to the Palestinians and the Israeli settlers and soldiers to help resolve issues between the sides. The last step of Peacemaking is conciliation. When tension and suspicion run high communication can become impossible, conciliation helps to overcome the distrust, and appease the parties. CPT’s worried about cause for broader context in the war. They did not want to be used by one side against the other breaking bonds for communication. One way to resolve what seems irresolvable is to use GRIT. GRIT is an acronym for “graduated and reciprocated initiatives in tension reduction.” Grit will help each sides initiate a few small de-escalatory actions, the initiator states desire to reduce tension, declares each conciliatory act before making and invites adversary to reciprocate. Although the article does not relate that the CPT can make a large difference with communication through conciliation, they do help the villagers with a sense of empowerment (Culbertson, 2006). In conclusion, peace is calming affect; involving parties in low-levels of aggression and hostility, whereas peacemaking is a way to resolve high levels of aggression and hostility. The reviewed article reflects how CPT’s the Gishes in particular address peacemaking trying to make a difference for the villagers in the areas they visit. Contact, cooperation, communication, and conciliation are four key ingredients to peacemaking (Culbertson, 2006). Contact is the initial connection will decrease prejudice in a situation. Cooperation can give empowerment to the all sides involved with the conflict. Communication helps resolve difference, whereas conciliation helps to overcome the distrust and appease the parties (Myers, 2010).

References
Culbertson, H. M. (2006) Hebron Journal: Stories of Nonviolent Peacemaking/Iraq: A Journey of Peace and Hope Public Relations Quarterly, 51(4), 3-4. Retrieved from www.EBSCOhost.com
Myers, D. G. (2010) Social Psychology (10th Ed) New York, NY:

References: Culbertson, H. M. (2006) Hebron Journal: Stories of Nonviolent Peacemaking/Iraq: A Journey of Peace and Hope Public Relations Quarterly, 51(4), 3-4. Retrieved from www.EBSCOhost.com Myers, D. G. (2010) Social Psychology (10th Ed) New York, NY: